RE: Will your chosen CMS vendor go bust?

Hi David,

I was just about to say the same thing, although not quite as eloquently as
you.  I completely agree.

After all, if Microsoft went broke would having the source code for Windows
and MS-Word help at all?  

Cheers
Ben


> Escrow is a bad choice in my opinion.
> 
> Escrow is more relevant for custom development. Having product code in
> escrow is of little use to anyone - it is simply a gesture of risk
> management that provides very little practical benefit. If a 
> product dies,
> the customer is best placed to get their content out and go 
> through the pain
> of migrating to a growing and better performing platform. It 
> is unlikely a
> customer can take the code and continue to meet their own 
> needs. It is also
> unlikely that they will be able to find suitable development 
> resources for
> ensuring their 'self-managed' solution continues to be 
> viable. Any company
> that wants to invest so heavily in 'being their own mechanic' 
> should have
> considered Open Source, where the Escrow idea is meaningless.
> 
> For proprietary relationships, there is more at stake than 
> the code. If your
> partner (vendor) goes belly-up, you loose support, product vibrancy,
> shared-development experience, and a range of intangibles 
> that simple access
> to the code will not address. From the vendor's point of 
> view, having the
> code in Escrow also damages the sale of business IP that may return
> something to the stakeholders and set up an arrangement where 
> another vendor
> can continue to support legacy installations or assist them 
> with transition.
> 
> Talking to IP Lawyers, it is clear that code held in escrow 
> is very rarely
> accessed and if it is, it seldom leads to positive outcomes 
> (simply more
> good money after bad). From the point of view of a vendor, none of the
> majors would put their product code in Escrow, so if you make Escrow
> arrangements a requirement, you are likely to get the type of 
> product you
> deserve and pay a premium for the arrangement.
> 
> Escrow is what your lawyers will suggest, not what prudent 
> business practice
> would suggest. James, good to see your post and glad you have 
> stirred up
> some conversation. No doubt others will disagree with this one.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David Warwick
> Komodo CMS