How about changing the rules?

[Bill la Forge]

I prefer a model which works like a magazine:

1. You have a central theme, say SAX2 and the MDSAX2 component model.

2. There is an annual subscription fee, as well as charges for back issues and collections.

3. Authors/programmers can have any number of arrangements: 
        regular columns,
        work-for-hire contributions,
        royalties based on circulation of a given issue, reprints, and inclusion in collections.

I've always though authors had a better deal than programmers.
But with things like PCs, Java, XML, and component-based programming,
there is no real reason not to make the transition.

Of course, to add real value, we would want to include branding and testing into
the model. Perhaps some kind of rating system.

Right now, JXML, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, is "between business models". 
I'm doing some work for The Open Group right now, but that's it. This might be 
an interesting vision. We'd need to grow JXML quite a bit to do it, but I'm open to suggestions.

Is this a reasonable model? How could it be improved? Any ideas on how we might best
proceed? (Open Source, Open Standards, Open Business Models???)

Bill
    


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)