BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (02/19/91)
I was wondering what people thought of a new concept in software. HIREWARE Basically, the program is shareware, with a fairly cheap fee. What the minimum shareware contribution gets the contributer is the latest version and some support/bug fixes. If the person suggests a new feature, they pay for it. An easy to implement feature might cost $5. A difficult change to suit some particular requirement might cost $100. The cost of a feature may be divided among several contributers, or payed for by the first to request it. Any changes may be included in the next public release, and all rights to the program remain with the programmer. What do you recon? Regards Alan
myb100@csc.anu.edu.au (02/20/91)
In article <21216@wehi.dn.mu.oz>, BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: > I was wondering what people thought of a new concept in software. > > HIREWARE > > Basically, the program is shareware, with a fairly cheap fee. What > the minimum shareware contribution gets the contributer is the latest version > and some support/bug fixes. If the person suggests a new feature, they pay > for it. An easy to implement feature might cost $5. A difficult change to > suit some particular requirement might cost $100. Uh - Alan - Those things I said in my review of your Multiplot were just comments, ok ? :-) <looking nervously at mailbox, waiting for a bill to appear :-) > > What do you recon? > Regards Alan Well - I can see the advantages, especially if someone wants a fine-tuned/ specially-tooled version of a program. The only choice they have is to (a) beg the programmer or (b) get the source code. Perhaps the programmer could 'sell' the source code, if the purchaser feels confident enough to work on it themselves. I can see a disadvantage, when the programmer and user disagree on what constitutes a 'new-feature' as opposed to a 'feature-modification', especially if the modification is more along the lines of either a bug-fix, or a general usability-enhancement. An example might be in Multiplot, where I commented on how extra data sets could only be loaded via the clipboard, or by creating a large file with all your data-sets in it. I suggested that the data-loader requester could have a gadget to indicate which data-set the new data could go into. This is not a bug, nor really a new feature, but a usability-enhancement, I think. What happens if now you disagree, especially if such a modification requires a large change to the code, i.e. a large amount of time and effort on your part ? I would feel hesitant to pay for this, and you wouldn't make the modification, and we both lose. I think if the case is clear, then I would follow your suggestion. It's when the feature is fuzzy that problems might arise. And there's perhaps another problem with large ($100) changes. Let's say I wanted a major change to Multiplot say for an astronomically useful feature, useless for others. You say 'Ok, that will be $100 and will take me 1 month'. Fine. But where is the onus on either of us ? I don't want to send the $100 in advance and find you don't deliver, nor do you want to make the huge effort and find I can't pay... This is getting a bit into contracts.... I do want FW/SW/PD authors rewarded for their efforts in some way. =============================================================================== Markus Buchhorn /// | This space Mt Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories, Canberra /// | PMB Weston Ck. P.O. A.C.T. 2611, Australia \\\/// | intentionally markus@mso.anu.edu.au -or- markus@merlin.anu.edu.au \XX/ | left blank ===============================================================================