Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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: