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
allready
> 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
changing
> the rules on the way.. I understand Rebol people needs to make money
on
> 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
http://www.perd.com
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted