From: "Terry Steichen" To: "George C. Hawkins" Subject: Lutris' Behavior Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:00:12 -0400 George, I think that Lutris had the original notion that they could leverage their previous software investment by shifting it to open source, as they did in January 1999. I suspect they believed (or hoped) that this would lead to (1) significant development assistance from non-Lutris users of the software, and (2) a growth in consulting fees for them (as the software became popular wildly popular, so too would grow the demand for services from those especially skilled in the software). Unfortunately for Lutris, these things didn't come to pass. So they decided to try to reinvent themselves as a software vendor (because, as you probably know, successful software vendors' profit margins are pretty impressive). The first fling at that was their attempt to 'privatize' XMLC. It didn't work. The most recent effort began in June. They removed InstantDB from the Enhydra site, and shifted virtually all of their resources to Enterprise Enhydra (a move which they formaly announced on September 8). Will they succeed? I don't know - my experience and intuition says no. Despite that and despite the misleading statements they've made (and the lamentable excursion into 'losing' messages that they deemed to be critical in attitude), I nonetheless hope they make it. With regards to Lutris "defrauding investors", I think they are doing exactly what they think to be in the best interests of their VC investors. As for morality, that is one of those 'eye of the beholder' judgements. They probably think themselves quite moral to try to keep their people employed and give their investors a chance at some return. IMHO businesses are, in general, amoral. Legally, of course, management and directors are *required* to optimize the benefit of shareholders (provided that the actions remain legal, of course). As to use of my postings on your site, that is of course your right. I would ask, however, that if you do so you present them in a context that accurately reflects my views as I've conveyed them to you (which are different from your own, despite our common distaste for some of Lutris' recent behavior). Regards, Terry PS: You didn't mention how your new job is going. ----- Original Message ----- From: "George C. Hawkins" To: "Terry Steichen" Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 8:11 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: FYI - No Charge for IDB Distribution > > My thought is that, rather than thinking of Lutris folks as 'con-men', think > > of them as a bunch of guys scrambling to put together an effective 'survival > > mode' operation. > > Hi Terry, > > Thanks for your reply. I do still think of Yancy and Co. as con-men tho'. I > think many people and companies face difficult decisions each year, have to make > hard choices and still go bust. People do all they can but there's a difference > between those who work hard and do everything honest that they possibly can > right up to the end and then accept defeat and those who go one step further and > start doing dishonest things, like defrauding their investors. While what Lutris > is doing may not technically be illegal I think they've definitely stepped into > the realm of what should be seen as morally wrong. The open source plus > commercial versions/support model seems to be dead, many other s/w companies > have found this and gone bust - what Lutris is doing now is plain wrong, I think > it's only another step for Yancy and friends to torch their premises and claim > on insurance (I am exaggerating for effect). > > I'm going to quote some of your postings on my page as they put the whole thing > far more eloquently than I do (I tend to take 3 sentences to say something where > 1 would be better). > > Yours, > > > George.