You mean, why advertise what the price is? Or give it away too cheaply? I don't understand the idea of not advertising the price... is it basically to charge each customer a custom price?
> is it basically to charge each customer a custom price?
Yes. You just have a "contact sales" type of stuff on the website and promotional materials instead of an actual pricing page. Very common in high ticket B2B.
I don't understand the product or use case too well to suggest how to price it. But I understand that usage would vary widely between customers. Hence price should vary greatly too.
I don't know what's your situation and how well connected you are in this industry. But generally at this price point people won't just come on your site and buy it. There will be some back and forth either way. And you probably will have to do outreach. So going to have a lot of opportunities to discuss price.
At this point it sounds to me like your greatest priority should be to actually talk to some customers.
That's a good idea. would it be a bad idea to reach out to my email with some names of companies in this space? I just wouldn't know where to start, it send that what you know would be very helpful. cris@dosycorp.com
You would have to become versed in PCI compliance and the ins/outs of different levels of that to know if your solution is 100% in line with what the latest security guidance is.
Any company that does a lot of CC processing could be a candidate, throw a dart at the Fortune 500 list and you'll likely hit one. Typically those types of companies expect enterprise solutions.
Small businesses might be a better starting point in that space but they won't have deep pockets. This thread [0] gives a perspective of PCI compliance challenge, security scans, etc.
PCI is just one aspect that I thought of where your solution might fit, there are probably other similar information security pain points you could explore.
I'm discriminating based on money. Like the selling of any product if someone can provide the money otherwise not. Otherwise that would be theft or IP violation or whatever it is.
But I guess you don't object to purchase so much as to what you see as my misuse of a term, which you feel is very important to get right. I get that. I understand that many people feel legitimately upset when they see the word used in a way that differs vastly from their beliefs about it.
I acknowledge those complaints you have, they're valid. I don't question your views, I just work from the point of view that it's a big world out there, plenty of room for different perspectives and experiences...and plenty of people with their own interpretation of a term. And there's plenty of room for different versions of a term. I don't think you or, or anyone has monopoly on the meaning of a word or whatever. We can all make our own meanings. No problem I see with that.
I understand you seem to differ on this and believe it's very important to get the word to align with what you see as correct usage. And you view my use of it which diverges from that...as a deliberate bait and switch to lure people in on the false promise of an open source while I rip the rug out from under their innocent feat and charge them or deny them usage. I could say your interpretation is ungracious or ungenerous, but I don't need to. I see it as valid, from your point of view. I get you totally see it as the right way, and I'm fine with that. We see it differently and that's OK.
So, ignoring the intricacies of usage because debating the fine points of terminology, of a particular usage...is not something I'm into here...maybe I can share some of the reason why I chose this, keeping in mind that I understand the license language is unpolished, and I think of it as a work in progress.
I think if you're trying to make money, then you should pay. But if you're in government, you're already funded by people's taxes, so why should we tax people twice? Government may as well not have to pay a license, but they should pay me for my time if I help them deploy it and they should respect my IP by not paying someone else to provide support or service with it. Then I did what I feel is also correct and extended that "free use" exemption to other areas which I feel are widely thought of as having a "public good". Such as not-for-profits (although I'm sure not all of them are good, but again they basically live on donations), and also journalists.
A bit of this is marketing and a bit of it is trying to extract value from what I've created. Maybe it's hamfisted...maybe it won't help me achieve my goal of value capture, and maybe no matter what I say you will despise my stance because you can't help but see my use of the term as an abuse of a sacred ideal meant for the betterment of mankind. I'm not really mocking you...I'm saying I appreciate your idealism, and I'm just trying to make money from what I built.
But if you an indulge me to speak to your idealism for a second, I think any idealism ought to include the openness, and innocence that helps give rise to it, otherwise it might become inflexible fundamentalism, causing more harm than good. I'm not saying you're causing harm here (except maybe to your health by getting upset)...just trying to express my view that there's plenty of ways to view a term, and they're all OK.
You might desire that I put some sort of disclaimer, along the lines of "Adherents of Open Source definition of Q: please note this is Open Source based on the definition of Y, but not per the definition in X, but it is called so because ...."
But I'm not bothered to do that. I feel that such subjectivity is implicit in communication, and doesn't need to be made explicit unless one assumes there is A Single Source of Correctness on the Meanings of Words, published by the Ministry of Truth, 2020 edition. Again, I'm not saying you think of things so inflexibly...I suppose I'm just exaggerating to make my point another way, people have different meanings and perspectives and that's OK.
At the end of the day, people need to consult the License in order to determine the terms of use. And really, if they have questions, they can ask.
Like I said, maybe this is hamfisted...and perhaps I'd make more money if I slapped an MIT license on it and upsold something else...who knows? I'm just learning. Please don't try to crucify me or what I made at the altar of your oh-so-inflexible-but-undoubtedly-correct-to-you beliefs.
If you stop and think about it, you might find there's a way you can use this without getting very upset...that is, if you really want. I guess you could have just been arguing for the sake of it, without any skin involved, but I choose to believe you really do see this product as useful. So if you want to discuss terms (and are not in the free use exemption) definitely reach out to me at cris@dosycorp.com
I avoided replying to your comments (or the thread you started) in the main thrust of the Show peak because I saw them as overly negative and I didn't want to ruin my day by involving myself in some fight. But now the peak is over, I feel it's OK to make my view known, and maybe we can find some useful common ground. If not that's OK, and I totally understand if you simply find this infuriating and thank you for reading this far. Either way best of luck and have a great one
Mmmm... That is really good. Thanks for sharing that.
Reminds me of the days and the funeral when a good friend killed herself.... sad times. 12 years later looking back the memory is still fresh...but not as shocking. Like it's become a part of me. No longer unfamiliar...it's different now from the days when I woke up crying, and cried every day for 6 months....
A lot of these criticisms about the license are valid and I acknowledge that. I do understand it's concerning and,I use someone's words here extremely antagonizing for a lot of people to have this use the term open source when their expectations of open-source are so vastly different. And I want to address that particularly in another comment but let me address what is your misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the restrictions.
I totally agree that you could have a back door and that be something possible to distribute in a binary. That's a legitimate risk. At the same time I think it's disingenuous to say that opening the source code on GitHub is not adequate protection but having some sort of third-party builds would be adequate protection against that. I think having those source code in the open is the ultimate protection against sort of backdooring. And from there anyone can download and run it using node or they can make their own binaries. And with respect to using any bineries distributed by anyone else everyone needs to use their own risk tolerance. At the same time I don't think the license that I've made precludes third-party builds with the meaning of that being other people building their own binary from the source code and distributing that for other people, I feel okay you can do that you just can't charge people for it, or use it as part of a paid service or project intended to make money, and you can't deploy it for them as part of a paid service. Unless you're already working in that organization and making this deployment as part of the ordinary course of your duties (like you can't be doing this as a contractor, and it can't be part of being contracted to work for them). One purpose of this restriction obviously is to get organizations to contract Dosyago corporation when they need help to deploy that Dosyago IP. A way to make money through consulting that's an alternative to selling per seat or per site licenses.
So I definitely think the criticisms of this license are valid at the same time it's important to be clear about what actually, you know, the restrictions are and what the risks of that are.
I definitely think people should exercise caution with regard to any software but they should also protect themselves against misinformation. So in that light it is I think in the interests of everyone's safety to have an informed and open discussion. That's why I'm addressing what seems to me to be a misrepresentation, and why and I'm also not bristling and anyone raising concerns about the license. I think it's perfectly valid and it totally makes sense for them to be upset about this.
I appreciate you sharing that, thanks! On here I set up the restrictions using user accounts and groups, iptables, cgroups and some monitoring of CPU and memory, with cpulimit and pkill for excessive use. Sort of like a lightweight "container" for each browser process.
In other words, each chrome process runs in its own user-space (a no-login user which exists only for the duration of the session), which has cpu and memory limits thanks to cgroups, bandwidth limits and restrictions thanks to iptables, and disk and browser cache limits thanks to chrome command-line flags.
