Is it possible to sell software to the big ones?

[sicofante]

I'm approaching my fifties and I'm about to live a quiet live by the sea. However, I want to create a number of apps that I find still poorly designed in Linux (and Windows too, BTW).

I'm wondering the following: do Canonical, Redhat, Novell, etc. buy external development like that? Would they buy my apps, opensource them and pay me back? Or would I need to do something as big as Ximian to even consider such an option?

Although I'd rather keep it as a small personal business, is it possible to become a Canonical employee from home?

[pmasiar]

I'm wondering the following: do Canonical, Redhat, Novell, etc. buy external development like that? Would they buy my apps, opensource them and pay me back?

I don't think so. Why would they? There is plenty packages under GPL. To be bought, you would need to be like JBoss: server+community of paying users.

You may want to try building websites

> Although I'd rather keep it as a small personal business, is it possible to become a Canonical employee from home?

If you are really, really good, known established expert in some projects. They have plenty of volunteers, doing it for fun, or because they need it themselves (scratch your own itch, then share).

You may try shareware, or remote consulting. If you are expert in some nice specific area, you may get paid for it. I know about a guy from NZ, who works for Boston-area startup: because he is really god in TurboGears.

[sicofante]

I guess the reason why someone would want to pay for an app is that it's better than what's available. But I understand it should have to be really much much better.

Thanks for your point of view.

[ubuntu27]

You can go to Ubuntu's Developer Zone or do something else to contribute to Ubuntu

You can sell Free Software, but I doubt they (Canonical) will be interested in buying them.

Many people create their apps for free (in both monetary and in freedom).

-------------

On a side note. Even if you are not going to sell your software, it is a good idea to start programming so people could benefit from it

[dempl_dempl]

Look, we all hang out at forum.
Do we look like a money making people ?
I'm not completly floodded with pool full of money, yelling : I'M RICH, RICH !!!

Neither are rest of the folks ....

[sicofante]

My question was made because it's pretty obvious to me that individual Linux users simply don't pay for software. This means that individual developers can't even think of making any money out of their work by targeting individuals, so the only hope would be targeting those software distributors that might be interested in newer better ideas.

I understand the Linux market share is still too small. Maybe if that share reaches some day a significant figure, both individuals and distributors become interested in paying for better designed apps for Linux.

Meanwhile, maybe I should try the Windows and Macintosh markets (and maybe distribute a free-as-in-beer version for Linux too). Linux is lovely but I hate working for free.

I know I can do custom development for local companies, but I'm afraid my area of interest is more into individuals. After years of supporting family and friends (and customers, of course) I have some insight on what are the needs of ordinary people.

Thanks for your replies. I'll keep thinking of it.

[Tomosaur]

Many developers can't seem to see the benefits of open-source development - which is fine, it's not for everyone, but we like to think of it as a 'problem shared, problem halved' kind of thing. If you develop in an open-source style, you yourself will have to do less work (apart from the initial preview to get other developers interested). This means you can focus more on other areas, rather than letting one are slip by the wayside while you try to implement a particular feature.

If your software is good, people will use it. You CAN sell open-source software, it's just that not many people do. If your product is unique, and people want it, then they have no choice. If you make a clone of an application,or just make 'yet another media player' or whatever - then obviously people are going to choose the free alternatives.

Many developers also do not like the simple fact that, once their code is released - if they have used the GPL licence, or any of the third-party libraries which your project is based from have used the GPL licence, then people can do with it as they please - including redistributing it for free. If this concerns you, then perhaps a more 'commercially friendly' licence such as the BSD licence is more suited to you. Bearing in mind, however, this will lock you out of all of the great code-base which is currently under the GPL.

It's worth researching into how developers make money from open-source software. Most do not treat the software as a service, which is what companies like Microsoft or Adobe do, but as a product which is supplemented by services such as support.

Either way, it's your decision. It's a complete myth that Linux users 'don't pay for software'. Why would we pay through the nose for something when there are free alternatives which are just as good, or even better? It's just common sense! If you can create a product worth buying, then people will buy it, simple as that. It's a challenge for developers who don't like competition - I don't see why the users should be forced to keep an uninnovative company afloat. If your commercial, proprietary product is sub-par or unoriginal, then you will fail in an open-source environment. The same is true of every industry - it's just that the nature and history of software has meant that commercial developers can afford to provide a poor product - and still generate revenue because there was no real alternative - then just not support that product, thus screwing users over. Open source users won't allow this to happen - we want the best for our money, or we're just not going to pay. Open-source ensures that someone, somewhere, is always able to keep the project updated, introduce new features, etc etc. The beauty of it is that the person who starts the project off has to do less work to get a great result.

Each to his own anyway. Commercial developers need to stop thinking of Linux users as cheapskates, but as a potentially lucrative market crying out for innovative software. Mark Shuttleworth - they guy who funds Ubuntu, is a self-made millionaire. Why would a millionaire use a product which is 'cheap', when he could just buy the absolute best on offer? All of these commercial companies are missing a trick by ignoring Linux - and all the while, Linux is developing and evolving faster than Windows or Mac could ever hope to do.

The lesson is: Build it well, we will buy. Don't screw us around, and you will have customers lapping up whatever it is you have to offer. We value equality, fairness, transparency, and consumer rights. If you respect those too, and you can create something we've never seen before, then people will buy it.

[gnuman]

The lesson is: Build it well, we will buy. Don't screw us around, and you will have customers lapping up whatever it is you have to offer. We value equality, fairness, transparency, and consumer rights. If you respect those too, and you can create something we've never seen before, then people will buy it.

Very well put. I'm actually surprised at how many programmers will pay for certain IDE's that "just work better" for them. Well, actually I'm not that surprised--I've sent away some money (and I'm not rich either, dempl) just to contribut to some OS projects that I've really really loved.

=D>

[pmasiar]

perhaps a more 'commercially friendly' licence such as the BSD licence is more suited to you.

IMHO you have it wrong. GPL is **more friendly** to original developer, because other people have to give code back, if they want to distribute it, With BSD, they **don't** - they can take code private, and distribute private forks, creating rather unfair competition. This is why **third-party companies** prefer BSD and call it misleadingly "more business friendly": they can easier "steal the code" and make money by selling proprietary changes to original open source code, without giving a penny or a line of code back to author. Only extremely altruistic people release under BSD.

[dempl_dempl]

Tomosaur: what if you sell your open-source software to me, I change it a little bit, and put a price-tag twice as lower as yours, and you run out of bussiness?
I am a customer , I can do whaterver I like with it. This situation can happen very easly.
For example, I already have a job as a university professor, or I don't have a family, so if I sell stuff for a half-price, I don't care...

BTW, I'm not defending evil companies in any way.