Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinH  Thanks guys for the candid and open feedback. We've heard the ask for free Outlook connectors before and continue to choose not to do so for many reasons. One is the cost of support for very small organizations is extremely high and not profitable. A few ideas I was thinking about that may be more convincing would be based on contributions. How about a system where if you contribute a new full language pack (Ajax, Lite, Admin, etc) or after writing and contributing X Zimlets or submitting patches to X open bugs, etc your rewarded in Network users. Basically some sort of elite community level that would show your support and dedication to Zimbra in return it would grant you access to some small number of Network users. Other ideas or contributions that would fall into a category like this? Is this something that seems reasonable? |
Could be interesting approach. Nice thinking. I'm also in a middle of making up proposal for profitable and widespread OpenSource, somewhat in line what you've just mentioned (has a lot to do with fairplay, which is a basics of your proposal, but mine will be more focused around branding and micropayments).
However, why would you support small organizations? That's our job. Is it profitable? Maybe not too much, but what if one lives in a country where there aren't many big companies? For example, my main driver is catching as much government agencies as possible. They have the money, and here in Europe, are easier to convince to go OS way. Here in Croatia we have several multi thousand desktop Linux migrations under way, something impossible just 6 months ago.
Let's say that you do give 10 Network seats (functionality wise, actually only Outlook plugin we are arguing about now missing) + unlimited basic, in a basic/opensource package. Of course, without any support. No one sane would ask you to give something totally free, and then spend your resources on support. You can clearly state that this edition is without warranty, support, indemnification, whatever. And that all of that can be purchased under bla bla bla terms.
With this current pricing your first version for mixed Outlook environments starts at 875$ per year. Which is ok if you wanted to get rid of smaller, not profitable to support companies. However, that is reducing your market share (in users term, not $$ terms), and crippling your distribution channels a bit.
Out there are several ways to fix that problem, from selling Outlook/iCal connectors for some fixed price, not dependent of your current licensing scheme, to Scalix approach, and, let's not forget hardcore GPL with FLOSS exception path some have taken, and I'm a big fan of. Not from fundamentalistic/religious reasons. Simply practical ones. Easier integration, better penetration, guaranteed code flow back to you (see, your translations, Zimlets problem) and, most of all, not a thousand of badgeware licenses and links around on my (and on my customers) screen estate. And you can still keep SuperUltraEnterprise Network checkboxes where you think appropriate (Wildfire/Openfire way).
I'm on a little crusade right now trying to get some perspective companies to understand that. Tough task
Ridiculed by many. But, Alfresco at first said no
Keep a close look at them guys, they are pioneering that approach in OS business software space, if they do well, you'll know what to do.
Back to topic, one way to fix it is your approach (which would be unnecessary if you were GPL). We would gladly give back something to you, a good Croatian translation, for a start (if you don't have one). Also, I see that you are using Lucene, that part would also be fun, to provide full Lucene search support for this market. We need it anyway for some other products, so we are already working on it.
Anyway, there's also one another way possible for that Outlook connector problem to go away. I've read somewhere that you'll offer CalDav support in your next version. Well, someone will just have to make MAPI/Caldav translator plugin
PS. I know GPL sounds extreme, and you'll probably just skip that part of text, eyes rolling, and am aware how stupid and impractical it may seem from your current point of view, but, as someone deep to the elbows in OS software, I do have to warn about what is happening on the field; people are unbelievably confused about OS licensing, both users and implementators. The situation is getting worse every day, and lots of implementators just steal or mix incompatible licenses, lots of companies don't have a clue of what are they using and is it legal, and lots of companies avoid it because they should have an turbo expert team of lawyers to explain them differences, and possible problems. The situation is on a verge of exploding, especially now with GPL3 added to a mix. That all just benefits proprietary companies, and hurts us as an opensource integrators, and you, as an opensource product provider(s). So, I'll always point out that, from my point of view, badgeware is totally unnecessary, and will hurt us all in the end. However, the code is your property, and you have a right to do with it whatever you want, and I truly respect that. Keep in mind I'm not in "free as in beer" camp, and that "free" part is actually damaging OS software model. That part I do find ridiculous, but I think that there has to be a better solution to make money in OSS than badgeware.
PS2. After two hours of comparing one MPL derivate (one high visibility OS software) and MPL license, I finally managed to find a difference between the two. It was not Exibit B, it was hidden in responsible court definition. But, that's not all. I also found a bug in that license, copy-pasted reference to "MPL", which is forbidden by MPL itself. The situation is getting really ridiculous.
Regards,
Filip Šelendić
Protenus d.o.o.
CEO