12 ms·

The article mentions code quality and license issues, and one of my favorites (MEME) seems to suffer a bit from both. I believe the first aspect is simply the r

by rch 11y ago

The article mentions code quality and license issues, and one of my favorites (MEME) seems to suffer a bit from both. I believe the first aspect is simply the result of being developed in a sequential fashion by different contributors (which is reasonable given the environment). The main problem is that the license rules out using the software for 'commercial purposes' except under unspecified terms that would need to hashed out with the tech transfer office. I completely support the spirit of that construct, but it makes it difficult to advocate for in practice. At least in this case, GPL or LGPL would be a significant improvement.

dalke 11y ago
The MEME commercial license is at http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/Media/MEME%20suite%20site%20license%20template%2004June2015.pdf http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/Media/MEM... . How is this "unspecified terms that would need to hashed out with the tech transfer office"? The license is US$2,500 for a license, which as Pachter correctly points out is a small cost for most companies. Also, while it would be a significant improvement to you, would it be a significant improvement to the science? For example, I can't speak to MEME but I know of a couple other projects where the software is at low/no cost to academics and has a license fee for commercial use. This money is used to fund future development, which gives a funding source that is independent of grant funding. Pachter also points out this possibility. It can be frustrating if some people cannot use a package due to license terms or costs. But it can also be frustrating to use a package where no one is available to answer questions or fix bugs - which is something that funding can address.
- bbgm 11y ago
  If you are bootstrapped it is a huge barrier. And Meme is not that bad. There are others that are far worse. I once tried using Modeller purely for hobby projects (science was not even my day job) but was denied. That's a problem.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Not all business models are economically viable, and others are not obligated to make it easy to support your choice of a bootstrap business model. My experience is that people who get a piece of software, even if for free, often want some support. If you don't give them support, some will complain. A company may decide that it's easier to deal with complaints about the lack of a free version for hobbyists than to deal with complaints about a user not getting sufficient (unpaid) support.
    - shiggerino 11y ago
      That's news to me, most companies seem to understand full well that if they want support on a free program they have to pay for it.
      - dalke 11y ago
        bbgm made two comments; one about a company under bootstrap, the other about "using Modeller purely for hobby projects". My first paragraph was a response to the first comment. My second paragraph was about the second.
        shiggerino 11y ago
        Oh, you were talking about the hobbyists? That's easy. Tell them to RTFM, and if something doesn't work, have them submit a patch. That's not a heavy burden.
        dalke 11y ago
        There are very few people who do bioinformatics as a hobby. The term "hobbyist" generally refers to people who are in a related field and want to dabble with a different set of tools, with no firm intention to do serious research in that field. However, these hobbyists tend to be experts in their (related) field, and talk with actual customers or potential customers of the company. Word of mouth is important, and if the company tell someone to RTFM and submit a patch, then this may lead to a bad vibe. Or it might not. But it's easier to say "only paying customers" and have no burden than to take on even the light burden of responding to non-paying users. Also, some hobbyists will use their "hobby" status to do research on the cheap. (For a related example, some professors have their own company, doing work related to their research, and use their educational status to get software that ends up being used for work that helps the company.) They might, for example, have an idea that they want to "play around with", which might be competitive with the product. It's not a serious idea, "just a hobby", but they are curious to see if it's something interesting, so get a copy of the software, and use that to judge if the idea should be investigated more seriously. Or start a competitive company. Or publish a paper where they demonstrate that when the tool is used poorly, by someone who doesn't the tool, then it produces poor results. Is that really a hobby, or is it self-delusion used to avoid committing oneself to a project? I can't tell, and neither can a company. A policy of "paying customers only" makes it easy to decide. There are certainly other solutions, but is there a concrete advantage to taking on that burden, no matter how light?
- rch 11y ago
  Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen it. I did know the cost since I suggested a client buy a license a couple of years ago, which they provided, but I didn't know it was such a straightforward process. My comment was based on my experience of getting it approved internally, which took a number of months and more than a little effort. During that time more work was done in other areas.

by rch 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

The MEME commercial license is at http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/Media/MEME%20suite%20site%20license%20template%2004June2015.pdf http://techtransfer.universityofcalifornia.edu/NCD/Media/MEM... . How is this "unspecified terms that would need to hashed out with the tech transfer office"? The license is US$2,500 for a license, which as Pachter correctly points out is a small cost for most companies. Also, while it would be a significant improvement to you, would it be a significant improvement to the science? For example, I can't speak to MEME but I know of a couple other projects where the software is at low/no cost to academics and has a license fee for commercial use. This money is used to fund future development, which gives a funding source that is independent of grant funding. Pachter also points out this possibility. It can be frustrating if some people cannot use a package due to license terms or costs. But it can also be frustrating to use a package where no one is available to answer questions or fix bugs - which is something that funding can address.

bbgm 11y ago
If you are bootstrapped it is a huge barrier. And Meme is not that bad. There are others that are far worse. I once tried using Modeller purely for hobby projects (science was not even my day job) but was denied. That's a problem.
- dalke 11y ago
  Not all business models are economically viable, and others are not obligated to make it easy to support your choice of a bootstrap business model. My experience is that people who get a piece of software, even if for free, often want some support. If you don't give them support, some will complain. A company may decide that it's easier to deal with complaints about the lack of a free version for hobbyists than to deal with complaints about a user not getting sufficient (unpaid) support.
  - shiggerino 11y ago
    That's news to me, most companies seem to understand full well that if they want support on a free program they have to pay for it.
    - dalke 11y ago
      bbgm made two comments; one about a company under bootstrap, the other about "using Modeller purely for hobby projects". My first paragraph was a response to the first comment. My second paragraph was about the second.
      - shiggerino 11y ago
        Oh, you were talking about the hobbyists? That's easy. Tell them to RTFM, and if something doesn't work, have them submit a patch. That's not a heavy burden.
        dalke 11y ago
        There are very few people who do bioinformatics as a hobby. The term "hobbyist" generally refers to people who are in a related field and want to dabble with a different set of tools, with no firm intention to do serious research in that field. However, these hobbyists tend to be experts in their (related) field, and talk with actual customers or potential customers of the company. Word of mouth is important, and if the company tell someone to RTFM and submit a patch, then this may lead to a bad vibe. Or it might not. But it's easier to say "only paying customers" and have no burden than to take on even the light burden of responding to non-paying users. Also, some hobbyists will use their "hobby" status to do research on the cheap. (For a related example, some professors have their own company, doing work related to their research, and use their educational status to get software that ends up being used for work that helps the company.) They might, for example, have an idea that they want to "play around with", which might be competitive with the product. It's not a serious idea, "just a hobby", but they are curious to see if it's something interesting, so get a copy of the software, and use that to judge if the idea should be investigated more seriously. Or start a competitive company. Or publish a paper where they demonstrate that when the tool is used poorly, by someone who doesn't the tool, then it produces poor results. Is that really a hobby, or is it self-delusion used to avoid committing oneself to a project? I can't tell, and neither can a company. A policy of "paying customers only" makes it easy to decide. There are certainly other solutions, but is there a concrete advantage to taking on that burden, no matter how light?
rch 11y ago
Thanks for the link - I hadn't seen it. I did know the cost since I suggested a client buy a license a couple of years ago, which they provided, but I didn't know it was such a straightforward process. My comment was based on my experience of getting it approved internally, which took a number of months and more than a little effort. During that time more work was done in other areas.