[t.wang21@hotmail.com]

When I found oscommerce, I was very much amazed at the business idea of oscommerce. the website mentions the trade law's protection of logo and names and copyright law protection of solutions although they can be freely distributed.

what about such the business model of os commerce as a whole?
I feel that it is great but may be hard to protect a business process or idea you create. PayPal's random deposit veritication, for instance, is patented. by patenting this process/idea, other payment method sites cannot steal the verificaiton technique from PayPal. What did oscommerce do to protect its business ideas/processes??

[MrPhil]

osCommerce is licensed as Open Source. It's under a copyright so no one may claim it as their own and lock it up. As well, its logo may be trademarked in various countries -- see the ongoing saga about a British company that improperly trademarked "osCommerce". There are no patents issued to osCommerce for its intellectual property -- the idea is to share freely and widely. The copyrighted code itself can't be taken, but the ideas and algorithms in it may be used by others. The only way to legally make money off of osCommerce is to offer services in support of the product, rather than selling the product itself. That's the business model, as I understand it.

[ecartz]

MrPhil, on 07 October 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

The only way to legally make money off of osCommerce is to offer services in support of the product, rather than selling the product itself.

It's perfectly legal to sell the osCommerce software. It's just that what idiot would pay money for something that is available as a free download.

An example of something that would be illegal under the GPL would be modifying osCommerce, encrypting the source code, and then selling that without offering the unencrypted source code.

Another example of something that would be illegal would be removing the copyright notice from the admin area (the catalog area is specifically exempted from this for those who change the default look and text) or removing the copyright notice from any of the source code files.

A third example would be modifying osCommerce, selling the modified copy (still legal at this point), and then trying to restrict the recipient from redistributing it (the illegal part).

A fourth example would be getting a software patent and then distributing osCommerce with code using the software patent. Patents and the GPL do not mix.

Incidentally, software patents have never been tested in law. There is a strong argument that software is not patentable. Red Hat is currently attempting to get the US Supreme Court to reject them (in a case involving business method patents). Under current law, the point of getting a software patent is not so much to allow you to sue others to "protect [your] business ideas/processes" but to prevent you from getting sued.

[t.wang21@hotmail.com]

ecartz, on 08 October 2009 - 07:37 AM, said:

It's perfectly legal to sell the osCommerce software. It's just that what idiot would pay money for something that is available as a free download.

An example of something that would be illegal under the GPL would be modifying osCommerce, encrypting the source code, and then selling that without offering the unencrypted source code.

Another example of something that would be illegal would be removing the copyright notice from the admin area (the catalog area is specifically exempted from this for those who change the default look and text) or removing the copyright notice from any of the source code files.

A third example would be modifying osCommerce, selling the modified copy (still legal at this point), and then trying to restrict the recipient from redistributing it (the illegal part).

A fourth example would be getting a software patent and then distributing osCommerce with code using the software patent. Patents and the GPL do not mix.

Incidentally, software patents have never been tested in law. There is a strong argument that software is not patentable. Red Hat is currently attempting to get the US Supreme Court to reject them (in a case involving business method patents). Under current law, the point of getting a software patent is not so much to allow you to sue others to "protect [your] business ideas/processes" but to prevent you from getting sued.

the sale and purchase of an oscommerce software is not a big issue. While it is legal for you to sell an oscommerce software, the consumer will not have the incentive to purchase from you becuase the consumer can download it from oscommerce. the sale and purchase will only occur if information asymmetry exist (say, the consumer did not that it is free and available from oscommerce)

secondly, the original question i asked is protect oscommerce's business model or business process rather than software. That is why I gave the example of PayPal. You did explain but you seems to consider the software and business process together rather considering a business process alone.

This post has been edited by t.wang21@hotmail.com: 08 October 2009 - 02:20 AM

[MrPhil]

t.wang21@hotmail.com, on 07 October 2009 - 10:14 PM, said:

Imagine if someone copies and pastes the business model of oscommerce, oscommerce will be less attractive. so it is essential that oscommerce considers how to protect its business model, at least some business processes to differentiat itself from others

osCommerce is deliberately set up to be non-profit and free to the world. There is no "business model" to protect. How can you be "less attractive" than free?

[Jack_mcs]

It's really not an issue. There are many variations of the oscommerce package already. Some are relatively successful and most use the oscommerce code and structure. Anyone can write their own shopping cart package and even mimick how oscommerce works. They can't copy the code itself and claim it as their own though. That is against open source policy and is enforceable (witness the recent problems with a former member here trying just that). But there are some shopping carts out there that, in my opinion, had to be created by someone familiar with oscommerce since the similarities are striking. But the ones I am thinking of are written in asp, which means the code couldn't be copied, at least not directly, so it is legitimate.

[t.wang21@hotmail.com]

MrPhil, on 08 October 2009 - 12:19 PM, said:

osCommerce is deliberately set up to be non-profit and free to the world. There is no "business model" to protect. How can you be "less attractive" than free?

software can be free to any world; however, this doesn't necessarily mean that oscommerce cannot generate revenue from other sources. BTW, if an online merchant sets up a store at oscommerce, do they have to pay any fees to oscommerce? How can oscommerce survive?

[t.wang21@hotmail.com]

Jack_mcs, on 08 October 2009 - 12:26 PM, said:

It's really not an issue. There are many variations of the oscommerce package already. Some are relatively successful and most use the oscommerce code and structure. Anyone can write their own shopping cart package and even mimick how oscommerce works. They can't copy the code itself and claim it as their own though. That is against open source policy and is enforceable (witness the recent problems with a former member here trying just that). But there are some shopping carts out there that, in my opinion, had to be created by someone familiar with oscommerce since the similarities are striking. But the ones I am thinking of are written in asp, which means the code couldn't be copied, at least not directly, so it is legitimate.

variations of oscommerce package? for instance??

[multimixer]

t.wang21@hotmail.com, on 08 October 2009 - 07:31 AM, said:

BTW, if an online merchant sets up a store at oscommerce, do they have to pay any fees to oscommerce? How can oscommerce survive?

I believe that you are just wondering why osCommerce - as open source - is free, why people contribute additional software, again for free, whats their motivation and how (or by whom) the whole process is getting managed

Quote

A third example would be modifying osCommerce, selling the modified copy (still legal at this point), and then trying to restrict the recipient from redistributing it (the illegal part).

So, lets say somebody sells a modified version of osCommerce. I agree, he can not put redistribution restrictions on what he got for free under the GPL, ie the software itself and contributions from others. But what if there is software included that was not released under the GPL? How can the buyer of the package separate the GPL software from the package and redistribute only this?

This post has been edited by multimixer: 08 October 2009 - 04:48 AM

[Jack_mcs]

t.wang21@hotmail.com, on 08 October 2009 - 12:33 AM, said:

variations of oscommerce package? for instance??

CRE Loaded, oscMax, ZenCart. There are others but those are the most well-known, I think.

[MrPhil]

t.wang21@hotmail.com, on 08 October 2009 - 12:31 AM, said:

software can be free to any world; however, this doesn't necessarily mean that oscommerce cannot generate revenue from other sources.

Yes they could, if they chose to. There's no reason that osC couldn't offer "Charter Memberships" (see SMF) and other for-fee services if it wanted to. osC has chosen not to be profit-driven.

Quote

BTW, if an online merchant sets up a store at oscommerce, do they have to pay any fees to oscommerce? How can oscommerce survive?

There are no fees to license or use osC. It survives on donations and ad revenue to pay for the website and incidental expenses. Everything else (programming, support on this forum) is time (and intellectual property) donated by the osC community.

Why can't you get the concept of Open Source and free software through your head? The Microsoft model does not completely rule the world.

[t.wang21@hotmail.com]

MrPhil, on 09 October 2009 - 03:34 AM, said:

Yes they could, if they chose to. There's no reason that osC couldn't offer "Charter Memberships" (see SMF) and other for-fee services if it wanted to. osC has chosen not to be profit-driven.


There are no fees to license or use osC. It survives on donations and ad revenue to pay for the website and incidental expenses. Everything else (programming, support on this forum) is time (and intellectual property) donated by the osC community.

Why can't you get the concept of Open Source and free software through your head? The Microsoft model does not completely rule the world.

it is good that miscrosoft model is not the only model.

[FIMBLE]

Some people just dont get Open Source and think that it is mad, it is what started off computing, homebrew clubs writing and giving it away for free in the 80's (for me!) viscalc, Quick and dirty operating system, Dbase all were free first off, then shareware and so on, Well maybe not so much Qdos.

Give me open source any day over the alternative choice.

Still some dont understand people writing and giving it away, im glad Sir Tim Berners Lee chose open source!!

This post has been edited by FIMBLE: 10 October 2009 - 08:35 PM

[spooks]

Some have the mis-conception that the more u pay for something, the better it must be!

Hence microsofts idea of charging loads, makes some think they make good stuff!!


Let them thow thier money away, they haven't the sense to know better!

[FIMBLE]

Ok talking about that, do you not think that the two latest releases of Microsoft, IMHO resemble PCLinuxOS minime? Especially Vista?
They have similar functions and looks, bit uncanny if you ask me.
This is just my opinion Bill if you are reading.
Steve Jobs does a better job than you anyhow