Hi Serge,

On 2016-07-11 03:16 AM, Serge Heiden wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> Le 10/07/2016 18:27, Martin Holmes a écrit :
>> If you want an open-source editor, then presumably you're talking
>> about creating a new editor from scratch, or extending an existing
>> open-source one. I must admit I've been thinking along the lines of a
>> special teaching version of Oxygen; since all our projects make heavy
>> use of Oxygen, teaching people with something substantially different
>> would be rather counter-productive.
> I understand your concern but open-source doesn't imply that the user
> experience should be "substantially different" to the one of Oxygen. For
> this we could add another feature to the set:
> - the UI should be sufficiently familiar to the equivalent Oxygen UI so
> that the learning cost to switch to that software is low

There are aspects of Oxygen which are perhaps too specific to mimic 
which are a core part of the way I teach with it. One example is the 
Oxygen project file; to be able to create a package which includes 
templates, validation and transformation without the user having to set 
these up is really helpful and convenient.

>> Along the same lines, this bit from the wiki page:
>> "Item 1.7. could imply a very moderate bulk licensing fee paid by the
>> institution that provides training; we have to bear in mind that the
>> entire discussion started because of a department refusing to pay
>> regular licensing fees (deemed as too high) for a course that lasts a
>> semester"
>> I think we need to aim for a free version. It's not just the issue of
>> the scale of the financial barrier; in many cases, system
>> administrators have to be involved to roll out special builds of
>> software and manage licenses for software which needs to be licensed,
>> and that in itself is a barrier to (for example) rapid deployment for
>> a course which is opportunistically arranged at short notice.
> I don't understand your point here. How price or pricelessness should be
> related to licensing modalities?

A piece of software which is completely free for ever will normally be 
managed differently from one which has a license on an enterprise 
network; in the case of the latter, a license server may have to be 
involved, there will be limits on the number of stations on which it can 
be installed at one time, there will be an expiry date for the license 
which needs to be tracked, and so on. This is my experience, anyway.

> Wouldn't be sufficient to ask for more flexible licensing terms?

If all that changes is the actual cost, then that's certainly helpful 
for many situations, but it would leave significant barriers in place in 
my own case.

> By the way, I would like here to clearly separate the open-source way of
> developing software from business models based on selling software. Or
> to make it simpler:
> - open-source doesn't imply free (as in beer)
> - open-source can be sold
> - free doesn't imply open-source
> So if you want free stuff, this should be clearly distinguished from
> open-source development.



> Best,
> Serge