Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have begun work on a personal project that may end up having some real-world applicability. I am beginning to entertain the idea of selling licenses. I am sure some others here have done this before, and I was wondering what successfully processes you've used to do so.
There are many questions on SO regarding licensing, legal implications, etc. However, I have looked around and could not find a duplicate question for this one. To be clear, I am not looking for information on what licensing strategy to use, how to advertise your software, and so forth, but rather, for a checklist of things that should be done to increase the probability of success, and any possible gotchas I have not thought of. If anyone has any personal success stories, they would be very welcome.
For a little background, I am set on the idea of licensing a closed-source, compiled .NET DLL.
A few things off the top of my head:
Strong documentation, because formal technical support is unlikely
Specifying licensing terms and formalizing them with an attorney
Code obfuscation
Exploring license enforcement (either using a commercial package or custom code)
Building a website around the product, including real-world code examples since this is a library
Possibly offering some type of beta period, for feedback and getting the name out a bit
Offering instant/automated purchases
Marketing (oh boy)
Is it necessary (or wise) to start a one-man company to do this?
I will keep this list updated as answers come in. Thanks all!
Some tips:
Obfuscation: Be wary of obfuscating everything. An alternative is to obfuscate just the critical bits (licensing, premium features). The problem with obfuscating everything is that stack traces from error reports are ineffective. When an unexpected exception is caught, you'll want to give the user the option of automatically reporting its details - this really helps with QC.
License enforcement: If it's a utility that can be easily pirated, people WILL pirate it. An activations-based licensing system is ideal - and if it's not too draconian people will be less motivated to circumvent it. For instance, allow at least 3 activations per user (home computer, work computer, laptop). If it's a control library, then an activation-based may not be required - baking the serial number into the library may be enough because customers are unlikely to build their own product on a stolen assembly.
Instant/automated purchases: writing a custom licensing server and web page for this is fairly easy - you need only about 3 tables. LINQ to SQL is ideal for this sort of thing. For the payment gateway, I use PayPal - it's very easy to set up, has the features you need for selling activation codes, and allows multiple currencies. If you use PayPal, enable both PDT and IPN so you can give customers their activation codes both on the screen and via e-mail.
Marketing: try LOTS of things simultaneously - because it's hard to predict the success of any campaign. Especially without experience! Making yourself known amongst the influential people in the field into which you're selling can work very well.
Advertising: advertise on StackOverflow - that's what I'm doing! Google ad words is also worth trying because it's so cheap to set up - you'll know after spending $10 whether it will be effective for you or not.
And good luck with it!
You have most of the practical things listed out, in terms of actually getting a product from you to the customer -
However, there are a couple of things I'd also recommend.
Figure out how you want to handle all of your accounting/purchasing/billing/etc.
Rethink formal technical support (for money), but not at the exclusion of documentation
Talk to a lawyer regarding all of your licensing decisions, agreements, etc., as well as company structure
Talk to your accountant (and/or find one who is good at working with small tech companies)
Some of this will cost some money up front, but save headaches later.
The last two bullets are crutial - there are MANY options for how to setup yourself from a tax perspective, each of which has potential advantages and disadvantages depending on your specific situation.
For example, if you're in the US, there are many advantages to incorporation prior to doing anything on your checklist. If you decide to incorporate, you may want to do it in your state, but there are also advantages to incorporating in Nevada or New Jersey (very pro-corporate states legally). If you're successful, doing this early can save a huge amount of work over time and have significant benefits.
Also, if you incorportate, you might want to consider S vs C corps (S Corps are great if you're a one or two man operation). If you don't incorporate, you can run as a sole proprietorship or an LLC, both of which have advnatages and disadvantages. A lot of this depends on your product (what it does), your expected returns, etc. - having a good lawyer and a good accountant is a huge blessing.
If you're aiming at software development teams as customers then the sort of thing they are likely to expect to see (in addition to the ones you listed) are:
A download service for any additional items and/or patches that the user might need.
Tight version control/configuration management processes so that it's easy to find out what version of the product they have, what they need and what the differences are between versions.
Email/online bug reporting.
A demo/trial version of the product.
A good set of tutorials.
Community support e.g. developer forums. This is a good 'value added' service that can also help with the fact that you have concerns (as a one man company) over being able to provide 'formal technical support'. Hand out a few badges and reputation scores and get a free technical support team ;) ... but if sales take off, seriously consider providing 'formal technical support', it can make a huge difference to the perception of the product.
... and make sure that the website, download service, license server, forums etc are all properly secured and done to a professional standard. If any of the peripheral services are less than 100% then it all reflects badly on the product, especially when yours is a technical one.
You might not want to provide formal technical support, but you could look for creative alternatives like some sort of moderated forum for issue resolution. Also, provide at least an email address for someone to contact you.
Another thing is to hire some sort of designer to make your product, documentation, website, etc look good. It is generally easy to tell programmers who attempt design.
In your opinion is it common and ethical to do custom software development for a Customer and then add that software to your base product which is available to your other customers?
My take on it is that:
It's a contractual issue between you
and the Customer.
It's done often (although maybe not 'common').
It's similar to the Customer paying to have their pet feature bumped up the development priority queue.
Can anyone point to any well known (or at least public) examples of this?
You are right, it should be a contractual obligation over who owns the source code. Many vendors will sell the finished product to the client but keep the source code, others will give the whole thing away (which is S.O.P. with our company)
I imagine it gets done, just not sure as far as the scope or depth of the copying.
I can't think of any well-known examples (primarily because business between two companies isn't often publicized), but a personal example is when we developed a much more flexible time-tracking system in one of our client applications and it turned out so well that we implemented it into our own personal time-tracking system (which wasn't that great out the gate).
From an ethical standpoint, I think it's actually quite simple: It's a matter of what your customer perceives you to be doing. Do they think you are customizing your product for them, or do they think they are paying for their pet requests to be bumped up in your feature queue?
As an extreme standpoint: if all custom made code could not be used anywhere else anymore then at some point you will not be able to continue your business anymore without violating that rule.
As the opposite extreme: if all custom made code would end up in a generic product then no customer would provide their specific problems to you anymore.
Of course both standpoints are quite extreme and are not likely to happen to that extent in my opinion.
Personally I would state very clearly to a new customer that in general all (custom) code could be used in other products and projects, unless it is agreed in advance to not do so for specific parts of the code. Then if it is really important to them that certain parts stay behind closed doors they will let you know.
It seems to me that if you are writing in an interpreted language that it must be difficult to sell software, because anyone who buys it can edit it/change it/resell it without much difficulty.
How do you get around this? I have a couple of PHP apps that I'm reluctant to sell to people as it seems that it's too simple for them to change/read/edit/sell what I've produced.
Hardly anyone sells code. We sell the ability to create, edit, support and understand the code.
As a potential buyer of your application, I might find these features attractive:
The ability to change the code to suit my needs
The ability to read the code to better understand what it's doing
... and yes ...
The ability to sell my modifications
All three of those are features.
The third one might be a feature you can't afford to give me. Fix that through legal measures, not technical measures. That's what licensing is for. You could also sell more expensive licenses which do allow resale.
There are things you could do to remove the first two features, but bear in mind that in doing so you are reducing the overall value of your product to some people, and therefore its sale price.
For many people the primary reason for using Open Source software is not that it costs nothing -- it's that you get the source code.
People sell the service of creating web sites all the time. Also, even a compiled language can be altered, it`s just more difficult.
Most of the time the user base does not understand how to make the changes or what to do with the scripts so you are really selling your knowledge of how to install and change the scripts.
Don't sell the software, sell "licences".
I'll try to explain better, build the web app but provide hosting for it. this way your client will never get to "hold" the source code.
If you really must deliver the source code, Obfuscating is the way to go ;)
Possible routes to go:
Translate to a bytecode, binary or an obfuscated format
For instance, Splunk is written mostly in Python, and distribute bytecode. The EVE online client uses Stackless Python to compile to an executable binary.
Host the solution yourself
Put up a website, charge for use.
License the software
They get the source, but cannot legally modify or redistribute the source.
Open source the solution
Anyone can change the code, but you are the de-facto authority on it, and you can earn money by selling support, consultancy and customization services.
You could also consider a combination of approaches. E.g., partition your solution into several stand alone packages, and then open source some of them, and sell bytecode versions of other parts. What you then sell is the complete solution, as well as other services, and some people may benefit and enhance other parts of the solution.
Plenty of companies make money off of applications in interpreted languages and happily distribute the source code with them. Don't take this personally, but your program probably isn't going to be popular enough to have a large following of pirates. And anybody who would pirate your software probably isn't going to buy it in the first place. If they can't pirate it, they'll pirate somebody elses.
Whatever you do, please don't obfuscate your code. It's not an effective means of preventing infringement and it won't do anything other than make life miserable for you and your customers.
Protecting your secret bits is getting more and more difficult.
IMHO, your solution really depends on your target market. If you are targeting business, just give them the code with a good license, and possibly some type of defect so you can determine who gave your code away if that ever happens. Businesses will mostly pay for your app just to stay compliant; it's not worth the legal hassles. And if an individual gets your app for free, that's probably a good thing, since they will try to convince their current and future employers to buy it.
If you are targeting individuals, and can do it as a web app (which you obviously are with PHP), do it as a hosted service, and either sell a monthly subscription or allow free access and find another way to monetize it.
If you definitely need to or want to distribute it to individuals for whatever reason, you can give it away for free, and try to monetize customizations, add-ins, & other support features.
This is a problem that's been discussed a lot, and a few hours’ worth of really focused googling should reveal all the current philosophies on this.
I hope this helps.
Obfuscation may be a good way to go
With PHP you have the option of using the Zend Guard for PHP. I believe it compiles the source code in a way similar to what the php interpreter does,
so it should also increase performance. Of course the price of $ 600 may be too much for your liking ;-)
Anyway, I see no reason why you shouldn't distribute your code with an open source license (see the Open Source Initiative for a list of licenses available). You can find one that prohibits your customer from redistributing your app.
EDIT:
As Novelocrat points out in his comment, a license that prohibits distribution is per definitionem not an Open Source license, the term Open Source refers to a lot more than just the availability of the source code. (See also the answers to this related question for further discussion).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In your “enterprise” work environment, how are engineers held accountable for performing code inspections and unit testing? What processes do you follow (formal methodology or custom process) to ensure the quality of your software? Do you or have you tried implementing a developer "signoff" sheet for deliverables?
Thanks in advance!
Update: I forgot to mention we are using Code Collaborator to perform our inspections. The problem is getting people to "get it" and buy into doing them outside of a core group of people. As stalbot pointed out below it is a cultural change but the question becomes, how do you change your culture to promote quality initiatives such as reviews/unit tests?
• Our company uses peer code reviews. We conduct them as Over-The-Shoulder reviews and invite the team’s tester to participate in the meeting to gain a better understanding of the changes. We use Source Control software that requires check-in, code-review rules to be signed off. Nothing big, just another developer's name that has reviewed the code.
• There are definite benefits to code review as several studies have been able to demonstrate. For our company, it was evident that code quality increased as the number of support calls decreased and the number of reported bugs decreased as well. NOTE: Some of the benefits here were the result of implementing Scrum and abandoning Waterfall. More on Scrum below.
• The benefits of code review can be a more stable product, more maintainable code as it applies to structure and coding standards, and it allows developers to focus more on new features rather than “fire-fighting” bugs, and other production issues. There really aren’t any drawbacks if code reviews are conducted “right”. More on the “right way” below.
• Some of the hurdles to overcome while implementing code reviews are the idea that “big brother” is watching me and the idea that not having perfect code means torture and pain. Getting developers to trust each other is difficult sometimes, especially when it involves “pecking order” or the “holier than thou” attitudes and putting your hard work under a microscope. Trust is the key to resolving these issues. A developer must trust that they will not be punished by peers or management for mistakes in code. It happens to everyone. Make a note of the issue, get it resolved and move on.
Scrum
One of the benefits of using the Scrum methodology is that a development cycle (”sprint”) is short. The time-frame of the “sprint” is determined by what works best for your organization and will need some trial and error, but really shouldn’t be longer than four week iterations. The benefit is that it requires the developers communicate daily and communicate problems early on in the project. This was initially adopted by our development department and has spread to all areas of our company as the benefits of scrum are far reaching. For more information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRUM or http://www.scrumalliance.org/ . As the development iterations are smaller, the code review process reviews smaller pieces of code, making the review more likely to find problems than hours or days of formal reviews.
“Right Way”
Code Reviews done the “right way” is completely subjective. However, I personally believe that they should be informal, over-the-shoulder reviews. All of the participants in a review should avoid personally attacking the person being reviewed with statements such as “why did you do it that way?” or “what were you thinking?” etc. These types of comments diminish the trust between peers, leading to animosity, hours of arguing over the best/right way to code a solution. Keep in mind that developers do not think or code exactly the same, and there are many solutions to a problem.
Just a little clarification on over-the-shoulder reviews; these can be conducted via remote desktop sharing (pick flavor here), or in person. However, they shouldn’t be limited to the developers only. We typically invite our entire scrum team which consists of two developers per team, a tester, a documentation person, and product owner. All non-developers are there to gain a better understanding of the changes or new functionality being made. They are free to ask questions or provide input, but not to make coding decisions or comments. This has been effective as certain questions will be asked that may change the direction of the project as the initial requirements may have missed a scenario, but that is what agile is all about, change.
Suggestion
I would highly recommend researching scrum and code reviews, before mandating them. Create the basic rules for each and implement them as part of your culture to achieve a better quality product. It must become part of your culture so that it is part of a natural process and integrated at all levels, as it is a paradigm shift from poor quality, missed deadlines and frustration to better quality products, less frustration, and more on-time deliverables.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, before checkin, then you could have your source control tool reject unreviewed checkins. For example, a trigger could reject checkins without "CodeReview: " in the checkin comment. Although people could still lie, they could also be held accountable.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, after checkin, then you could see if Code Collaborator will play nicely with your source control system and automatically make a review task after each checkin (push or pull; whatever works). After that, use whatever "polite annoyance" features Code Collaborator has, to make sure reviews actually get done.
If you want people to review only some checkins, not all checkins, then good luck with that.
We have a pretty cool setup. Coders are expected to test their code before check-ins to ensure that it doesn't break the build and to write tests where they make sense to have but high coverage isn't required.
Complex methods are expected to be commented.
At the end of phases code is reviewed by the whole team.
Pair programming. Work items have a required field of collaborator, the person that you paired with for the work
We lean heavily on ITIL concepts. While we don't need the full scale ITSM that ITIL provides, we have implemented processes that draw from some of the best practices in ITIL, specifically in the areas of Change Management and Release Management.
Code reviews are part of our RM strategy. As a change or new piece of code makes its way through our RM process, a lot of eyes look at it. Ultimately the Release Manager makes the call on approval or rework, and all of this is documented (we use TFS and SharePoint). Formal code reviews are held by the Release Manager and the technical team he selects. The primary developer for a release candidate is held accountable for adherence to standards, functionality, and a verification of a completed test plan. If the quality standards aren't met, the deliverable is rejected and the project schedule is updated to reflect the rework.
Yes, this is all very heavy. I work in government and we have complex laws to follow, specifically in the areas of taxes, ADA compliance, and so on.
We use three basic rules
1) The developer is responsible for fixing bugs in code when unit tests don't exist. In cases where there is a test, the person breaking the test is responsible for fixing it.
2) Code reviews. There are some code review smells that are a good warning sign, over defensiveness and blame redirection being the two most common.
3) NO EMAILING CODE, JARs or config files. Everything is in the scm.
To create the culture 1st try define your standards and values and most of all make them known.
Then hire people who believe in them or who could be able to adapt to them. Don't hire someone who does not have any connection at all with your company values.
Make sure that those who respect these values and show improvements are "rewarded" and "properly" recognized and seen as models. Don't forget that for many is not all about the money.
Don't hesitate to take appropriate measures againts those who do not fulfill their responsibilities but make sure they know them. And have them accountable for their deeds.
Allow people to become used with any new responsibility.
To make change in culture is big deal. Still there are some ways to change.
Create awareness about code review and importance of code review tool. It can be done using training session.
Motivate the people : Giving some reward for the code reviews.
Change in process : Make sure that code review should be happen and properly. It can be done using checklist and part of release process.
Do not try to change completely. Slowly introduce newer changes. Create small group to observe and discuss the change in code review process.
Provide the solution instead of create problem. Process should not be overhead. It comes automatically. Provide solutions to peoples problem related to the process.
Assume your .NET-based development team is already using the following set of tools in its processes:
Subversion / TortoiseSVN / VisualSVN (source control)
NUnit (unit testing)
An open source Wiki
A proprietary bug-tracking system that is paid for
You are happy with Subversion and NUnit, but dislike the Wiki and bug-tracking system. You also would like to add some lightweight project-management software (like Fogbugz/Trac) - it does not have to be free, but obviously cheaper is better.
Can you make a compelling argument for adopting VSTS, either to add missing features and replace disliked software or to handle everything (including the source control)? Is the integration of all these features greater than the sum of the parts, or would it simply be better to acquire and replace the parts that you either do not like or do not have?
I remember looking into VSTS a few years ago and thought it was terribly expensive and not really better than many of the free options, but I assume Microsoft has continued to work on it?
VSTS is great, if you do everything in it. Unfortunately the price has not become better over the years. :( The CAL's are still ludicrously expensive. The only improvement is that if a person uses only the work item system, and works only with his/her own work items (no peeking at other person's work items!) then there is no need for a CAL. This makes it a bit easier to use it as an external bugreport system. Still it leaves a lot to be desired in this area.
There is one way to alleviate the cost - become Microsoft Certified Partner. If you are a simple partner, you get 5 VS/TFS licenses for free; if you are a Gold Certifiend Partner, you get 25 (if memory fails me not). That should be enough for most companies. But getting the Gold status might be tricky, depending on what you do.
If you only dislike those two parts, then perhaps it's better just to find a replacement for them instead for everything? There are many wiki systems out there, some should be to your liking. The same goes for bugtracking too.
We are extremely happy with not only the tools, but the integration that Team Foundation Server, and the various Team Editions have given us. We previously used Borland's StarTeam for source control and issue tracking with a 3rd party wiki, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
It came time for us to extend our licensing and support agreement with Borland, only to learn that the cost of adding users to our license and upgrading the product would cost us as much (a little more, actually) than biting the bullet and making the switch. One thing to consider is that you would normally pay for the development tools to begin with, so the cost is partially absorbed by our budget.
We also did not feel the need for getting Team Suite for every person. You might want to consider it for the developers, but other disciplines don't really have a benefit in using all of the tools in most companies.
We were able to get the appropriate team editions for twelve people, enough CALs for 50 users (for Team Explorer, Teamprise, Team Project Portals, Team Web Access), Teamprise for the five Mac Users that we have, and the Team Foundation Server software itself for under six figures. Considering that includes the developer tools that we normally would be buying, it was a good deal.
The upfront cost on new licensing also covered two years, so we could split the budget between the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. The very important thing is to make sure not to let the licenses lapse, as the renewals on licenses cost a fraction of the initial cost and also include version upgrades.
As to the features, we are in the process of rolling out. About half of our department completed training, and I have already started migrating projects over. The development team absolutely loves the features and tight integration with their workflow. Version control is a snap, and work items (and their related reporting artifacts) are extensible to the nth degree. The fact that TFS relies heavily on bringing sanity to workflow management helps to tie in all of the processes to a level that you just can not get with multiple vendors.
My absolute favorite thing, though, is the extensibility model. Using the Team Foundation Server API, you can easily write check-in policies, write tools to interface with the system, develop plug-ins, and more. We are already seeing gains in productivity and the quality of our products through a minimal implementation.
Still on the horizon, though, is integrating Team Build. I have yet to set up a build project, but it seems to be seamless and painless. Time will tell... :-)
Edit - I forgot to mention that our migration to TFS includes licensing for the Test Load Agent. The load testing functionality within Team Test is one of, if not the absolute best that I have seen.
Where I'm at, we've settled on the following:
SVN for source control
Redmine for bug-tracking and wiki
NUnit for unit testing
CruiseControl.NET for our build server
Redmine is an open source Ruby on Rails application that supports multiple projects much better than Trac and seems to be much easier to administer. It's definitely worth checking out.
VSTS seems to be way too much money compared to other products. As an additional benefit, you also get the souce with open source solutions, which allows you to modify things to fit your need if the capability isn't there yet.
I'd stick with SVN and use trac or bugzilla or fogbugz. You could also do a trial of team server. In my opinion it is not worth the money. MS had their chance with version control and they screwed it up a long time ago. Too late to the party if you ask me and frankly I am not impressed with how they try to control all your development experience in the IDE with "integration" to the source control. I prefer the perforce/SVN and separate defect tracking solution.
With all that said, you probably can't go wrong with any of the following:
bugzilla or trac or fogbugz AND SVN
MS team thingamabob