opensource:
	is commercial software
	usual licence:
		general public licence (gpl)
		bsd
	earn:
		paid support for your own project
		enterprise upgrades: paid addon, subscription editions
		commercially packaged knowledge and training
			install, customize, enhance for money
				makes the os product better for new customers
		service instead of licence
			people pay for open source hamburgers
		printed manuals and cds
		relicencing and sell
			libraries and engines to integrate in non opensource
			you need written permission of all original authors
		one can earn from existing open source projects
		grants
	can be copyrighted
	actions
		research pros and cons of licencing and businnes models
		see people around os projects
		see existing projects -> enhance?
		talk to community
		package
		marketing the fact that it is os
		perpetual code escrow
		should know the code best
	changes are difficult
	manage community contributions
	community needs vs making money balance

no open source businnes model:
	jverberg.posterous.com/open-source-businnes-model
	"A open source software businnes model simply doesn't exist, by definition. You can't charge for the software. [...] I think your businnes model should be around something else than the software. Let it go, you are not selling software anymore."
	"The question you should be asking is 'How can a company make money, if it gives away software for free?'"

strategies:
	optimization
	dual licensse
	consulting
	subscription
	patronage: drive the standards
	host
	embed

you don't support open source, open source supports you

alternative:
	open source doesn't threaten custom-built software
	custom-built software 95%

software cost is 0
	http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001041200620OPBZCY--
	"who wll invest in software development if it doesn't yeld a return?"
	open source is no dumping
	only who doesn't rely on the software can give it away for free
	create additional copies of a software costs nothing
	laws impose a system of artificial scarcity: inefficient
	if making the software doesn't cost you anything, then it does not have to have a return
	follows: make open source software only because it makes sense for it to exist
		it is not a businnes model
		it is just a way of getting what you need
		therefore any open source software (whether existing or developed with a community) shall be just a mean 
		"software stands alone in its twin characteristics of infinite replicability and amortisability of effort"
		"Looked at this way, open source seems the more natural and efficient way to build software"
		"perhaps corporations shouldn't develop software at all!"
	"open source software is a substitute, not a competitor, to the entire category of proprietary commercial software."
	"Is it possible to make money off open source? In the light of all that we have discussed, this now seems a rather petty and inconsequential question to ask. There is great wealth that will be created through Open Source in the coming months and years, and very little of that will have anything to do with money."

what I can offer
	knowledge, intelligence, competence, time
	so the ability to make software is worth nothing?
	the time spent developing?

production: work -> existence, availability to everyone
who would pay for the production of software that everyone can have then?
who would pay for the "existence" of software rather than for its ownership?
maybe someone wants a software to exist, because if it exists, they profit?
the disadvantage of other people having vs the advantage of having it: where is the first smaller than the second? 
many small payments

mix tra kickstarter e guru.com
chiunque può proporre progetti
dei gruppi di developer si propongono
i partecipanti di un gruppo possono votare per il prezzo
chiunque può donare soldi a uno o a un altro gruppo+progetto

il prezzo giusto:
	quanto ci vuole per chi lo produce a vivere il tempo necessario per la produzione
	nel caso del software: molto la prima volta, più nulla dopo