A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 08:05PM, Ryan S. Dancey 
<ryand AT organizedplay.com> wrote:

>My concept of the split was like a word processor and the book you write
>on it.  If the code for the word processor is open, everyone can make it
>work better, and positive change will create a momentum for overall
>improvement.  But my book is my personal work, from which I expect to
>extract value in the form of compensation.  I don't want the output of
>the word processor to be open, otherwise I'll kill the value
>proposition.

Various people involved with Creative Commons have released their books under 
Open licenses (notably Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" and Cory Doctorow's 
novels). They seem to sell well, with the exposure the Open version gives 
driving sales. The fact that "Free Culture" was hardback was the deciding 
factor in me buying a copy: definitely added value.

That's different from the output not being open, it's closer to the 
frictionless reliance on value proposition you mentioned earlier. I don't 
know whether those books being Open works as a novelty because they're the 
first to do it or whether it's like hearing a song on the radio and then 
buying it.

Sun Microsystems have talked about the added value of assembling a software 
distribution as being "editorial" in nature. I've used that model when 
talking about Open media. Assembling source, providing the bridges and 
context and packaging it up nicely is a useful function worth paying for. 
Mongoose Publishing sortof did this with their OGL PLayer's Handbook clone, 
although I think that competes more on price and convenience than added 
editorial value.

>There is actually less and less of this kind of behavior because the
>publishers as a group are becoming more aware of the concept of shared
>utility.  There's an economic incentive for them to collaborate - they
>all want to use each other's work.  This is a social impetus, not a
>license-driven trend, and if someone proves a business model that shows
>disregarding the value of the "cathedral" makes money, it could be lost.
>But so far, the trend has been in a positive direction.

One of the stated aims of this list is to come up with an economic model for 
this sort of thing (I think, I'm not an economist). Do you think it's 
possible to quantify the effects of the OGL on WotC's revenue stream, or is 
that the wrong way of looking at the equation?

>I had the advantage of total crisis.  The D&D brand was nearly dead when
>I got my hands on it, and the company had spent tens of millions of
>dollars to acquire it.  In such extreme circumstances, management is
>often willing to cast caution to the winds on a "hail Mary" type play.

Hmmm. I wonder if anyone could buy "Star Trek" and Open it? ;-)

I think software companies releasing previously closed databases as Open 
Source are doing this sort of thing now. And I've seen at least one media 
project that won't have a future without going Open.

>It didn't hurt that the CEO, Peter Adkison, could see the long term
>value to himself personally of being able to use D&D in commercial
>products regardless of his relationship to the company that owned it.
>In fact, Wizards of the Coast's first product (written by Peter) was a
>book that endeavored to create a unified system for many RPGs and which
>was battered by real and threatened litigation as a result.

"The Primal Order", yes I remember the Palladium Books lawsuit. Palladium 
have always been Intellectual Property heavies. I think WotC has done far 
better financially, and to be honest creatively, by going Open.

The recognition that community interest and commercial interest may be 
aligned and can drive each other seems to be core to successful Open 
projects, I get this feeling very strongly with the OGL.

- Rob.