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


From: rgaither:triad:rr at: 12-Dec-2002 9:22

Hi Lennart,
> Cindy told me it required a license that cost $499 up front and than > an additional 10% on whatever you make from the distributed programs > (which of course is best represented by a pointer to NULL when it > comes to Freeware).
Ah, that clarifies things a bit. I remember the $499 part but for some reason I made the bad assumption that buying the SDK included it. That wouldn't make sense though as that $499 is an annual charge not a one time fee. I think it applies as an advance on the royalties for that year as well.
>> Seems to me the earlier licensing was a percentage based on >> income so freeware wouldn't owe any royalties. > > Correct, but you have to pay $499 anyway.
Got it.
>> I vaguely remember some discussions about why you would >> need encap for freeware in the first place but I would like it not >> to protect my code as much as to package the result into an >> easy to use .exe file. > > No matter the reasons one might have, it's either paying $499 or > distributing your code as is. > > For the sake of completeness I'll summarize the various costs. > > * SDK without /Command but capable of encapping apps with View/Pro > capabilities: $299, at the moment on sale for $249. > > * SDK with /command: $499 > > * Student discount (if you happen to be one and can prove it): 10% of > the product price. > > * Royalty agreement: $499 up front and 10% of whatever you make.
Thanks, RT should take note and make this kind of simple breakdown part of their web site information. :-) I am fairly sure that $499 does go towards the royalties for that year so while this is an issue in the freeware discussion it is important to note it isn't just a flat "fee" if you are doing commercial applications. Another point is that for those who already own View/Pro I think the upgrade price is $199, not $249. One piece that is missing and perhaps isn't defined yet is the cost (and detailed description) of the REBOL Developer Network. It is listed as a free trial with the SDK purchase but if it is like any of the other developer networks I'm aware of it could be another sizable annual expense. I hope the trial is for the first year and not some weak 3 month kind of timeframe. :-)
> Actually, I'd like to see some flexibility when it comes to the last > part. Perhaps it could be possible to pay nothing, but instead > agreeing to give RT a higher percentage IF you actually make any > money. <- This would cater for us "freeware" proplr. Also, one could > be able to pay a larger amount up front, thus decreasing the > percentage RT gets. Thus, high initial investment <-> low percentage, > low initla investment <-> high percentage.
I'm sure RT is willing to discuss any specific options on a case by case basis. They do need a standard, not too complicated, contract option which I think what they have fits nicely.
> I don't think RT would lose on it, on the contrary I believe more > would buy the SDK. As it stands now, the royalty thingy is a > dealbreaker as far as I'm concerned.
Another option that they could consider for the freeware part is that you agree to include the powered by REBOL logo/graphic with the product and any web site access to it. Overall I agree with Carl Read that the pricing is good from the commercial perspective. I am very happy that RT listened to us on the multiple platform pricing. I will be picking up the SDK for Windows and Linux and (insert gentle reminder) Mac OS X once it is available. :-) Rod. Rod Gaither [rgaither--triad--rr--com] Oak Ridge, NC USA