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

SDK

 [1/36] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 11-Dec-2002 13:51


https://demo.rebol.net/cgi-bin/order/buy.r?cmd=buy&prod=sdk& Though officially not reachable... --Maarten

 [2/36] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 12-Dec-2002 17:22


In case anyone missed it, you can now purchase the SDK. Here's the purchase map: http://www.rebol.com/upgrade.html --Graham http://www.compkarori.com/cerebrus

 [3/36] from: carl:cybercraft at: 12-Dec-2002 20:20


On 12-Dec-02, Graham Chiu wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, you can now purchase the SDK. > Here's the purchase map: > http://www.rebol.com/upgrade.html
US$249 for the SDK and "Second or more copy is only $99 regardless of platform." That's good pricing, I think. (Note there's a more expensive Command/SDK coming out as well.) -- Carl Read

 [4/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 9:22


2002-12-12 08:20:38, Carl Read <[carl--cybercraft--co--nz]> wrote:
>US$249 for the SDK and "Second or more copy is only $99 regardless of >platform." That's good pricing, I think. (Note there's a more >expensive Command/SDK coming out as well.)
Too bad you need to sign that royalty deal to be able to make encapped freeware apps. Oh, well...:-) /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [5/36] from: sunandadh:aol at: 12-Dec-2002 5:58


> Hi, does the $99 for other platform hold for the Command/SDK too? Robert
The Command/SDK page reads: Purchase additional Command/SDKs now for only $299.00 each https://demo.rebol.net/cgi-bin/order/buy.r?cmd=buy&prod=sdk-cmd& So, it doesn't look like it :-( Sunanda

 [6/36] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 12-Dec-2002 11:16


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> regardless of platform." That's good pricing, I think. > (Note there's a more expensive Command/SDK coming out as well.)
Hi, does the $99 for other platform hold for the Command/SDK too? Robert

 [7/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 12:20


2002-12-12 12:03:40, Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> wrote:
>Hi Lennart, >On Thursday, December 12, 2002, 9:22:26 AM, you wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>Maybe this does not really apply to freeware, what do you think? >Anyone talked to Cindy about this yet?
Yes, I have and yes, it does. Hence my original comment. /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [8/36] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 12-Dec-2002 12:03


Hi Lennart, On Thursday, December 12, 2002, 9:22:26 AM, you wrote: LF> Too bad you need to sign that royalty deal to be able to make encapped LF> freeware apps. Oh, well...:-) Restricted Distribution. The programs created as the output of with this product have restricted distribution rights. Programs created by this product cannot be sold, bundled, or distributed as part of any product without a separate commercial distribution license from REBOL Technologies. Maybe this does not really apply to freeware, what do you think? Anyone talked to Cindy about this yet? Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: http://web.tiscali.it/rebol/index.r

 [9/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Dec-2002 13:31


Gabriele Santilli wrote:
>Hi Lennart, >On Thursday, December 12, 2002, 9:22:26 AM, you wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>Maybe this does not really apply to freeware, what do you think? >Anyone talked to Cindy about this yet?
Ah well, what is that all about? I will ask Cindy about it. I don't understand it and it seems to me pretty limiting though. In the end of January probably, I will announce our new company, and hopefully its basic line of products. I already negotiated with RT my plans. Basically, we want to offer two types of sw model. 1) Basic - deliver Encapped app with our device. RT get's those 10% of sw price, as defined in Encap 2) provide Pro version - full rebol interpreter, licensed specifically to our device. We simply want to help rebol take off in certain area ... Now the question comes - does above SDK license part makes 1) not possible? -pekr-

 [10/36] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 12-Dec-2002 7:18


Hi Lennart,
>> Restricted Distribution. The programs created as the output of >> with this product have restricted distribution rights. Programs
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
>> Anyone talked to Cindy about this yet? > Yes, I have and yes, it does. Hence my original comment.
Does it cost anything or just require a license? Seems to me the earlier licensing was a percentage based on income so freeware wouldn't owe any royalties. I don't mind going through the hoop of licensing as long as the result can be freely distributed. 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. Thanks, Rod. Rod Gaither [rgaither--triad--rr--com] Oak Ridge, NC USA

 [11/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Dec-2002 12:59


Gabriele Santilli wrote:
>Hi Lennart, >On Thursday, December 12, 2002, 9:22:26 AM, you wrote:
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>Maybe this does not really apply to freeware, what do you think? >Anyone talked to Cindy about this yet?
No, but I will do so soon enough, as I don't understand, what does above mean. We are ready

 [12/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 13:58


2002-12-12 13:31:16, Petr Krenzelok <[petr--krenzelok--trz--cz]> wrote: Hello Petr,
>Now the question comes - does above SDK license part makes 1) not >possible?
No, it should still work. The issue here is non-commercial distrubution of encapped programs. /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [13/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 13:55


2002-12-12 13:18:22, Rod Gaither <[rgaither--triad--rr--com]> wrote: Hey there Rod,
>>> Restricted Distribution. The programs created as the output of >>> with this product have restricted distribution rights. Programs
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>> Yes, I have and yes, it does. Hence my original comment. >Does it cost anything or just require a license?
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).
>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.
>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. 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 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. Cheers people! /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [14/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Dec-2002 14:14


Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> Gabriele Santilli wrote: >> Hi Lennart,
<<quoted lines omitted: 16>>
> No, but I will do so soon enough, as I don't understand, what does > above mean. We are ready
eh? :-) hmm, and I wondered where my message reply went, so I started once again :-) My fingers being faster than my brain? ;-) Sorry for wasting thread bandwidth ... -pekr-

 [15/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Dec-2002 14:44


Lennart Fridén wrote:
>2002-12-12 13:31:16, Petr Krenzelok <[petr--krenzelok--trz--cz]> wrote: >Hello Petr,
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>No, it should still work. The issue here is non-commercial >distrubution of encapped programs.
The question was, if I still need for special license for case 1) I described?

 [16/36] 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> 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
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> 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

 [17/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 16:10


2002-12-12 15:48:03, Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> wrote: Hi Gabriele.
>Please note that $499 is an advance on sales up to $4,990. So if >you sell for less than $4,990 in an year you only pay $499.
Okay, yet another piece to add to the puzzle...:-)
>However, I had the impression that the whole point about the SDK >was to allow Freeware programmers to use Encap without the need >for the Royalty licence, which would only be required for >commercial applications.
Obviously RT had and have other plans.
>If it is not so, I'm not sure I understand what the SDK is good for >(except for the commented source code I'm now studying ;-).
Well, it's excellent for commercial developers (10% might be a bit high for some, then again REBOL does a lot of the work for you). Cheers! /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [18/36] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 12-Dec-2002 15:48


Hi Lennart, On Thursday, December 12, 2002, 1:55:09 PM, you wrote: LF> * Royalty agreement: $499 up front and 10% of whatever you make. Please note that $499 is an advance on sales up to $4,990. So if you sell for less than $4,990 in an year you only pay $499. However, I had the impression that the whole point about the SDK was to allow Freeware programmers to use Encap without the need for the Royalty licence, which would only be required for commercial applications. If it is not so, I'm not sure I understand what the SDK is good for (except for the commented source code I'm now studying ;-). Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: http://web.tiscali.it/rebol/index.r

 [19/36] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 12-Dec-2002 9:52


Hi Gabriele, GS> However, I had the impression that the whole point about the SDK GS> was to allow Freeware programmers to use Encap without the need GS> for the Royalty licence, which would only be required for GS> commercial applications. If it is not so, I'm not sure I GS> understand what the SDK is good for (except for the commented GS> source code I'm now studying ;-). I had the same idea but maybe that is not the case. I think they do leave the door open with the clause about getting their permission; I think that means they *could* give permission to distribute apps that they think help promote REBOL, but that's PURE SPECULATION on my part. I think the SDK is also good for in-house development at corporations. I seem to recal that you could distribute things within your company with it. We'll want to get clarification though. -- Gregg

 [20/36] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 12-Dec-2002 12:52


Hi Lennart, What is 10% of 0. Well for each license of your software that you sell, be sure to give the 10% of 0 to RT. ;-) I have spoken to RT about freeware apps and that was their response. ;-) HTH Ammon Johnson --- CIO Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws) 435-616-2322 -------- (ammon at addept.ws)

 [21/36] from: ptretter:charter at: 12-Dec-2002 12:51


I'm not completely sure of the licensing model either. I have inquired about this in the past. However, I know that my version of SDK says: Licensed to: Paul Tretter (commercial) <[ptretter--charter--net]> This would imply to me that I have a commercial license. Which I did purchase a while back. I never paid into the Royalty program though. The website news for December says: Relaxed licensing on use of REBOL API within Encapped programs I would like to know more about what that means. Paul Tretter

 [22/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 12-Dec-2002 21:42


2002-12-12 20:52:09, "Ammon Johnson" <[ammon--addept--ws]> wrote: Hello Ammon,
> What is 10% of 0. Well for each license of your software that you > sell, be sure to give the 10% of 0 to RT. ;-) I have spoken to RT > about freeware apps and that was their response. ;-)
I know, but nevertheless you still have to pay $499 up front. _THAT_ is what's bothering me, an _THAT_ is what's stopping me from getting a SDK. Enough of this though, RT may pick whatever license scheme they want, I just don't agree with it, that's all. /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [23/36] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 12-Dec-2002 14:57


Hi, I realised that that was the issue you were having after I posted. I am not sure how the license is changing, but I have been working quite closely with RT and I think that I can get them to let me encap freeware scripts for ppl for a nominal fee, say $10-$20 and I would pay RT a percentage of that. That way RT gets paid *per use* of its product and you freeware writers don't kill yourself writing freeware. I will keep you updated and announce when and if that will be available. Enjoy!! Ammon Johnson --- CIO Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws) 435-616-2322 -------- (ammon at addept.ws)

 [24/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 12-Dec-2002 23:22


Ammon Johnson wrote:
>Hi, > I realised that that was the issue you were having after I posted. I am
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>don't kill yourself writing freeware. I will keep you updated and announce >when and if that will be available.
What about traditional license type - pay once, do whatever you want to do with rebol? -pekr-

 [25/36] from: carl:cybercraft at: 13-Dec-2002 12:05


On 13-Dec-02, Rod Gaither wrote:
> 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.
Yes, assuming multiple platforms means more than two eventually. (Given Carl Sassenrath's recent positive comments on BeOS, I think we can take that as read, however.) But, $499 a year to be allowed to distribute freeware encapped apps? That sounds like a way to prevent developers getting out of paying the $499 by saying "Our apps are free - what you're buying is our support". -- Carl Read

 [26/36] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 12-Dec-2002 18:44


Hi Carl,
>> 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. > > Yes, assuming multiple platforms means more than two eventually. > (Given Carl Sassenrath's recent positive comments on BeOS, I think we > can take that as read, however.)
I meant the discount for versions of the SDK on more than one platform, which even with only Windows and Linux for now is a price break from the old way.
> But, $499 a year to be allowed to distribute freeware encapped apps? > That sounds like a way to prevent developers getting out of paying > the $499 by saying "Our apps are free - what you're buying is our > support".
Could be but I doubt it. I think the royalty plan with an advance (the $499) was aimed at covering some costs even if no sales happened and some increased access to product support and services. Thanks, Rod. Rod Gaither [rgaither--triad--rr--com] Oak Ridge, NC USA

 [27/36] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 12-Dec-2002 17:10


Hi, I don't know about that. RT seems pretty intent on sticking to their current licensing model. I guess they think that if their product is good enough, people will willingly abandon the more traditional licensing models that allowed computers to become as mainstream as they are now. I have to note, though, that their model is similar to that which killed the Amiga and other such platforms, and was a model which was rejected at the dawn of the information age. Either way, I'm with RT anyways. I have yet to find out if they're right or not, but Carl seems to rarely be wrong. And maybe that licensing scheme was years ahead of its time just like the rest of Carl's ideas. ;-) Enjoy!! Ammon Johnson --- CIO Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws) 435-616-2322 -------- (ammon AT addept.ws)

 [28/36] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 13-Dec-2002 13:24


On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:42:37 +0100 Lennart Fridén <[lennart--nylen--biz]> wrote:
>I know, but nevertheless you still have to pay $499 up >front. _THAT_ >is what's bothering me, an _THAT_ is what's stopping me >from getting a >SDK. Enough of this though, RT may pick whatever license
Hi Lennart, You worry about something because the point is not clear on RT's website, and maybe their policy has infact changed. But let me tell you my experience. For the last month I have been releasing Cerebrus, an Encapped application, which is currently without charge, and I have not had to pay the USD$499 up front. Nor have I had to sign any Royalty Agreements. No one from RT has told me that what I am doing is in violation of any unsigned agreements. And Carl and Cindy both know what I am doing. But, when and if I start to sell it, then of course I will sign the Royalty agreement. -- Graham Chiu http://www.compkarori.com/cerebrus This hound hunts down spam!

 [29/36] from: lennart:nylen:biz at: 13-Dec-2002 7:41


2002-12-13 01:24:51, "Graham Chiu" <[gchiu--compkarori--co--nz]> wrote: Hi there Graham,
>No one from RT has told me that what I am doing is in >violation of any unsigned agreements. And Carl and Cindy >both know what I am doing.
That is _WAY_ to risky for me. I'd rather see RT explicitly stating that it is 100% okay, and free of charge, to encap and distribute freeware pograms. So far I've got a mail from Cindy telling me that In order to distribute unlimited free copies you would have to sign our Royalty agreement and pay $499 . You'll have to excuse me if this takes precedence over the fact that you have yet to be told something along the lines of "cease and decist". I'm not interested in violating RT's licenses, I'd rather have RT change their licenses to better cater for freeware programmers. Sincerely, /Lennart Fridén ([lennart--nylen--biz]) The World is not sane so why should I be?

 [30/36] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 13-Dec-2002 9:08


Ammon Johnson wrote:
>Hi, > I don't know about that. RT seems pretty intent on sticking to their
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>licensing scheme was years ahead of its time just like the rest of Carl's >ideas. ;-)
Hmm, we all know Carl is technology folk, but are you suggesting they don't need marketing person? ;-) Each role is important in company and Carl can't have enough time to take care of all roles in his company, unless his company is 1 to few persons in size. What is the purpose of being strict? Does such strictness really help RT to grow? You have to be really sensitive and offer open-minded solution even to area like licensing model. RT already IS sensitive in some regard - they do offer discounts for educational area. But - it may not be enough. Maybe there are some developers, who really can't affort to buy SDK, but would like to do some interesting project using REBOL. RT has to choose, if they cut them off or they support them with some special kind of license, etc. Remember - even one single project can drag attention of new audience, which in turn, can bring RT a lot more brighter future, than sticking to some licensing scheme. We should always ask ourselved - In the end - do we benefit from it? -pekr-

 [31/36] from: bry:itnisk at: 13-Dec-2002 10:11


> I don't know about that. RT seems pretty intent on sticking to
their
>current licensing model >From my talks with RT I get the feeling that there is some sort of
contractual obligation somewhere that makes it difficult for them to vary the licensing model. I would suppose that there is some venture capital involved which maybe makes the licensing so weird and hard to handle. Since I believe this to be the case I figure there's not much point in complaining but try to do the best with what we have.

 [32/36] from: bry:itnisk at: 13-Dec-2002 10:20


>But, $499 a year to be allowed to distribute freeware encapped apps? >That sounds like a way to prevent developers getting out of paying >the $499 by saying "Our apps are free - what you're buying is our >support".
I have some background in American contractual law. The problem above would not be one best solved by charging $499 to keep people from saying our apps are free- what you're buying is our support but rather to have a contractually binding definition of what constitutes free in the context of encapped apps.

 [33/36] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 13-Dec-2002 12:48


Hi, I am not suggesting that they don't need marketing folks, I know that each position in the company is needed. I guess my point was more that I /highly/ doubt you are going to get any licensing without the %10 royalty, and I am *NOT* going to push for it, sorry. Take a look at Graham's example. Is RT sensitive? You tell me. The thing that you have to realize though is that they can't publicize their /sensitivity/ because the moment they do then /everyone/ will be asking for a free ride, and every request for a free ride uses the precious time of RT in investigating where or not this person is just looking for a free ride, wether they are capable of pulling through on their claims, or if they just need to be strict with the licensing in this case. ;-O Enjoy! Ammon Johnson --- CIO Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws) 435-616-2322 -------- (ammon at addept.ws)

 [34/36] from: chalz:earthlink at: 13-Dec-2002 18:10


Heh. I'm a charity case, Ammon. I don't expect to produce any actual software, for sale or distribution. I like to play around. I might make some personal utilities and stuff, post them on my site once in a while or something, but that'd be the extent of it, I'd wager. However, I am not about to ask for a free copy. I honestly don't deserve it, since I really can't do anything for RT in return. :/

 [35/36] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 13-Dec-2002 18:45


Hi, So what is your point? My point is that you shouldn't be bothering RT for a free copy then. Enjoy!! Ammon Johnson --- CIO Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws) 435-616-2322 -------- (ammon AT addept.ws)

 [36/36] from: chalz:earthlink at: 13-Dec-2002 20:55


I know, I'm not. I was re-affirming it. Or, I thought so. I'm also being a little goofy. You people are so serious :P

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted