[REBOL] Re: Encap
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 20-Oct-2001 20:08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Irwin" <[greggirwin--mindspring--com]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: Encap
> I spoke with Cindy recently and she said the new license agreement is
> done for encap. Beyond that, and with the caveat that I may mis-state
> things, here's my understanding.
> You can use encap to protect your source, by binding it to the REBOL
> runtime, but you don't have to. The Alliance (now called REBOL Royalty I
> think she said) is required if you want to sell your apps commercially
> if you don't encap them. If you don't use encap on them, you may
> the free versions of Core and/or View with your app, but not the pro
Huh, above two sentences seem to contradict one each other, no? I would
expect free distribution of /Core and /View (not possible currently), if app
is not sold or used for commercial purposes (difficult to define, as I can
set price for app being 0, while charging 500USD for tech support :-), and
source to app is provided.
There should definitely be possibility to allow distribution of /Core, /View
products, even in their /Pro version, of course, not for free. I just know
cases/areas, where I would like to allow users to be productive, and
Encapped app is limiting. But I can hardly push customer to buy Rebol
themselves. I can imagine some special business conditions between "me" and
RT, or just combined registration key - "pekr xy companyXY", or maybe such
key should be registered to party selling app ...
However, it seems to me that setting the right licencing policy is not all
that easy ...
> I didn't ask about encap'd code loading external code/data but I think
> would have to be allowed because otherwise you couldn't deal with
> data in native REBOL format, could you, and that would severely limit what
> kind of apps you could write. Again, without knowing the details, my guess
> is that an encap'd app doesn't provide access to the console.
Any kind of rebol capabilities limitation would be stupid imo. That should
be avoided by some license terms. You surely know that console can be
emulated to some extent :-)
> As I think Carl said before, the legal side of things seems to take longer
> than the coding side. :)
Yes, it does seem so :-) I still wonder if there will be possibility of "buy
once - run everywhere, whatever" :-)