Re: [Opengc-devel] status/Avsim conference update/RFC

[Manuel B. <li...@va...>]

Hi Damion,

just a couple of thoughts from me...

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 11:25:04PM -0400, Damion Shelton wrote:
> 1) People are impressed with its multi-platform, multi-sim capabilities.
> 2) The open-source nature of the project is not, in and of itself, a 
> selling point of the project (keeping in mind that this is largely a 
> FS200x, and to some extent X-Plane, oriented crowd).
> 
> I have personally believed that the main thing that differentiates 
> OpenGC from Project Magenta (and indeed other cockpit efforts) is it's 
> multi sim/platform support. While I do not wish to make product 

I think, the "multi sim/platform support" should remain the primary
"selling point" for OpenGC. ("Selling point" not meant literally here)


> 1) Closed source development creates a viable business model that would 
> allow development of gauges for which there is a non-trivial 
> development & distribution cost. For instance, gauges based around 
> commercial terrain and map databases (for which there are no freeware 
> alternatives).



> 2) The homebuilt aircraft/EGyro component of OpenGC developed this 
> summer will need to be accompanied by physical hardware development, 
> which will require purchase of hardware in the multi thousands of 
> dollars range. I am unable to float the cost of this myself with no 
> expectation of return (for obvious reasons), which would essentially 
> block development of what I think is a potentially very valuable 
> addition to general aviation.

Have you considered 'modularizing' OpenGC (not necessarily on the binary
level, eg. shared objects/dlls/plugins, maybe on the source level...)

Why not leave the core of OpenGC with all the current Gauges under GPL
and continue to use this as the basis for free and commerical
distributions, while creating the possibility for commercial gauges to
just "drop" in their source in a subdir before building.

The resulting binary would be a payware program (which could be done
totatlly independent from OpenGC by a company who wants to use it that
way with their own special gauges)

As far as I undestand, this would mean the core needs to be
relicensed/dual licensed under LGPL.
If such a company wanted a change in the OpenGC core, it could add code
to the opensource CVS core OpenGC (that piece of code haveing the same license
as the core)

That way, every user/developer of OpenGC could profit from those
changes. I think such a development model is much more viable than
having a(nother) closed source Glass Cockpit Software.

My ideas go along the lines of how Mozilla/Netscape or
OpenOffice/StarOffice are orginized and developed.
Both have a free version and also a commerical version with a few more
things added to it that could not go into the free/opensource version.


For me the most important about OpenGC is the fact its free software and
the code is open source.


What do you think ?

> This leaves the following as potential targets for full 
> commercialization:
> 
> 1) Development of more polished gauges, more in line with the Project 
> Magenta work, and any gauges which require data unavailable in free 
> format.

I don't believe that there is a big market for this. Most of it is
already taken by PM. 

> 2) The homebuilt aircraft market.
> 
> 3) Custom gauge development, either on a contractual basis or by 
> licensing a copy of the OpenGC source for commercial development.

Why not set up a model (eg on "contractual basis") that all gauges that
are developed (even for money) to be made free/opensource after its
finished. What I mean is: some company wants a gauge for eg. their
homebuilt aircraft systems. They pay you to write it. When its finished,
they load OpenGC and the gauge they paid for onto their hardware. They
sell this hardware with OpenGC and that gauge in it to their homebuilt
customers. You put that code into CVS. They got what they wanted. OpenGC
has another gauge. You earned some money. 

 
Just some ideas... :-)

Regards,
Manuel