[REBOL] Re: It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving critic
From: robbo1mark:aol at: 22-May-2001 5:02
CARL / RT GANG / EVERYBODY
I earlier said that people prefer software
to be free both in terms of price AND in
licensing terms.
Whilst I've got into enough fights about
the merits or otherwise of open source
software and how that might improve the
uptake and acceptance of REBOL, I'm not
here to get into that fight again!
MOST people just want to TAKE and not
contribute anything back in return,
that is just a FACT! of human nature.
We see some evidence of it here on this
list where people bleat on about the
non free-ness of REBOL either in
terms of price or conditions of use.
CARL & the RT gang operate REBOL as a
commercial organization, the produce
some really excellent software, they
give out a good proportion of it for
little or NO fee.
They do this in the attempt to maximise
their long term profits & salaries.
However they must still cover their costs
or else go out of business, hence the
commercial products, prices and licensing
terms.
If you don't like the prices or licensing
terms then as I'm sure I've hammered home
often enough you do have alternatives.
If you want software to be FREE in price
& licensing restriction you could help
contribute to making this happens.
At another list where people are interested
in a FREE REBOL like language there are
about approximately seventy five members
plus about a couple of dozen who seem to
come and go frequently.
Yet only about seven or eight people actively
contribute to that groups efforts.
It seems people not only DON'T want to pay
for commercial software & the licensing terms
that accompany that, when offered a FREE alternative
in terms of zero price and less restrictice licensing
is seems they are reluctant to actively help make
something which you would infer was valuable and
beneficial to their purposes.
It would seem that for a lot of people they want
FREE Software and unrestricitive licensing but
are NOT willing to contribute their MONEY to
commercial offering nor offer their TIME to
free software projects.
I have a lot of sympathy with CARL & the RT Team
in this respect. People must learn that nothing
get's done for nothing, there is NO such thing as
a free lunch. YOU must either pay in terms of money
to commercial developers of pay in terms of time &
voluntary contribution to open source software projects.
CARL & RT have set out fair prices and terms for their
high quality commercial software & deserve a fair reward
for their efforts. They create the product they get to
set the prices and terms.
If you don't like those terms then you do have choices
but that means you must make some contribution.
PEOPLE CAN'T CONTINUALLY EXPECT THE WHOLE WORLD TO FALL
INTO THEIR LAP FOR NOTHING.
Give back what what your due in either your time or money!
That's all.
Mark Dickson
In a message dated Tue, 22 May 2001 4:37:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [Robbo1Mark--aol--com]
writes:
<< CARL,
Nobody ever said software *MUST* be free of charge, not even Richard Stallman, the market
will decide whether prices are viable and sustainable.
People just prefer FREE! both in price AND licensing terms.
Mark Dickson
In a message dated Mon, 21 May 2001 7:18:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carl Sassenrath
<[carl--rebol--com]> writes:
<< No, it's been around for a while. We just decided to stress it more.
Why is this a bad idea? Please explain.
Did you pay for your computer and monitor for your business?
Why not pay for software used for your business?
Why must software be free of charge?
I am open to discussing the licensing model.
I am not open to the Bank of America using our software for free.
-Carl
At 5/21/01 10:15 PM +0200, you wrote:
