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

It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving crit

 [1/2] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 21-May-2001 17:26

From: "Joanna Kurki"
> Looks like that new license was kind a big suprise to many list
readers. Yes, you are right.
> I'm happy I found about these new restrictions before I spend more
time to
> learn this and trying to get it used on our system. (Although I
> ordered copy of 'Rebol for Dummies' book that I have not yet > received.. Perhaps I use this language on home sometime..)
Yes, you are right, again.
> PS2: I'm not against payments or licenses etc.. But I'm against
> the rules on the way.. I understand Rebol people needs to make money
> selling Rebol but IMHO you are taking quite a big risk here...
Yes, you are (shall I say it again, yes, I will) right, again. Joanna, have I mentioned that you are right, recently? Thanks for brining this issue to light, as I believe there are many surprised list members at this junture. --Scott Jones

 [2/2] from: pa:russo:perd at: 22-May-2001 11:35

Carl, Holger thanks for the answers. During my sleeptime this thread grew a lot and now it's my time to increment it again. Some sparse thought: 1. I agree that if I use REBOL to make a profit it is correct than I have to pay something to REBOL Tech. 2. There are too many gray areas between your examples. The previous statement "For commercial use contact us" without a definite pricing seemed correct to me. I interpreted it as "if you want to make money leveraging on REBOL features, let's talk and we'll find together a license agreement tailored on your needs". And it was a clear message from a young enterprise which needs to gain acceptance for his products. REBOL Consulting seemed a way to build revenue offering added value services on REBOL platform. Now I read a pricing absolutely reasonable in some context and totally absurd in some other. For example, if I remember well, /Runtime license started at a $1 pricing for each CPU, discounts on volumes. So I can encapsulate and distribute my /core scripts at $1 each copy, but if I want to distribute the same scripts together with /Core I have to pay $79 for each copy. I expect the same situation to happen with /View/Runtime. Will Desktop justify a 99 times higher fee? Or will we have a $99 /View/Runtime fee? Again,if I want to develop and sell my faboulous killer application, when I read a license fee of $99 per CPU, I think this is a development tool targeted at products with a street price of at the very least $400 per copy. Surely these are silly doubts, easily explained by you, but... how many people will stop to ask? Is it a correct marketing practice to ingenerate doubts about your products? 3. LDC competes directly with the widely accepted browser-centric model. Browsers are free. /View's Desktop has to be free. How many projects do you know where a non technical manager choose the latter between "$9,900 for 100 clients" and "a dramatic, but unquantifiable productivity improvement"? If I try to explain my reasons, I put myself in the same condition of IBM & friends vs Microsoft some years ago: good products promoted through technical, incomprehensible to managers jargon vs "don't worry, pal: it's the standard, everyone loves it. You will not be obliged to justify something you don't undestand". Guess who won? Free /Core and /View with BASIC functionalities give us a shot to make the platform gain acceptance by examples. "See, it works! It has just a fraction of the total cost of ownership of Java or ASP based solutions, your IT folks are happier and you can choose color too! Now, about that /Command license I need..." 4. I think a added-value services business model could be more effective for REBOL Tech. If I am in the condition to ponder a $99 per CPU license cost, easily my project needs /Command or /Serve or at least /PRO. Especially with /Serve, customization and hosting services can be the economically sensible solution for a wide variety of small/medium sized projects/firms. Besides, how do you think you can verify that a Ford department or whoever else uses /View for profit? It's unfeasible, and antieconomical, too. Just my two cents. Paolo Russo
>Easiest thing to do is to provide examples: >Let's say you work for Ford Motor Company. You come across
<<quoted lines omitted: 69>>
>[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the >subject, without the quotes.
-- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions

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