Hi John,
I agree with your list. SUO-KIF is a language (#1). SUMO is a
resource (#2). Sigma is a toolset (#3). I'm not really sure what you
mean in distinguishing tools and platforms. Maybe a platform is a set
of tools. I get government research funding for 1-3 and government and
occasionally commercial funding for 5.
I think #1 has to be largely unencumbered, maybe only by the copyright
that would prevent someone else from creating a language with the same
name. #2 is best given a CC or GFDL license I think, although the
BSD-style license WordNet uses has served it well. For #3 and #4 I like
LGPL. #5 may well be proprietary, and that can be the case with an end
user product that uses the previous layers with the licenses I
recommend. (01)
Adam (02)
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 13:12 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 9/17/2010 12:25 PM, Adam Pease wrote:
> > I see most companies selling services or custom software. That's what
> > has worked for me. A few very large or well-funded niche providers may
> > sell shrink-wrapped software. Many seem to take a model of keeping the
> > software proprietary mainly as a way of keeping their competitive
> > advantage and barriers to entry, while still mainly selling services.
> >
> > Using LGPL would allow incorporation of open source code into commercial
> > software and seems to me to be the best option on balance.
>
> I agree with the broad outline, but I'd like to make a distinction
> between several kinds of things:
>
> 1. Language-like things (Java, KIF, CL),
>
> 2. Resources (WordNet, EDR, SNOMED)
>
> 3. Tools,
>
> 4. Platforms,
>
> 5. End-user products and services.
>
> For #1, it is extremely difficult to get anybody to adopt a new
> language, and cost is a major deterrent to students who can become
> the major users when they graduate. For example, Simula 67 and
> Pascal were two successors to Algol 60 that came out around the
> same time:
>
> 1. Niklaus Wirth gave away the Pascal compiler he implemented,
> many people adapted it to a wide range of different hardware,
> and it rapidly became an attractive alternative to the extremely
> complex Algol 68.
>
> 2. Simula 67 was the first object-oriented language, which was
> superior to many OO languages that came out 20 years later
> (e.g., C++). But the Norwegian government expended a lot
> of money developing it, and they charged a huge amount of
> money for it. As a result, almost nobody bought it or
> even heard of it.
>
> For #2, I summarized the problems with EDR, and Alan Rector
> summarized the problems with SNOMED. A good solution is to
> give it away and encourage a community to develop extensions
> that benefit everybody. Meanwhile, the original developers
> can earn money by consulting and earning money from #3, #4,
> and #5.
>
> For tools, platforms, and products, there is no single
> one-size-fits-all solution. IBM originally developed Eclipse
> as a product, but they couldn't sell it in competition to MSFT.
> So they gave it away and took advantage of the community
> efforts. Other companies give away a basic component (such
> as the Adobe reader) and charge for the development tools.
> Other companies give away a simplified version, and charge
> for the full-function version.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
> Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository (04)
|