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 critic

 [1/19] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 21-May-2001 21:15


> > > > The basics (/Core and /View) ARE free. > > They are free only on personal, non profit use.. > > See http://www.rebol.com/products.html > Rebol/view "Price: Free for non-commercial use. Commercial licenses are
$99
> per CPU. " > Rebol/core "Price: Free for non-commercial use. Commercial licenses are > $79 per CPU."
Hmm, what a price - one solution is - use it on your server then and let your client run one copy, installed on server. Now I at least know, what's the Commercial fee ... .. but ... I remember Dan stating, that everything is negotiable - if you don't like conditions set generally, negotiate your situation and private licencing scheme. I think RT is open to negotiate ... I hope so, as I will need it :-) -pekr-

 [2/19] from: pa:russo:perd at: 21-May-2001 21:56


> > > > > The basics (/Core and /View) ARE free. >>
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
>need it :-) >-pekr-
... but... being Dan the kind person he is... he could explain us all what Rebol Tech means for "commercial license" exactly, before we start the usual infinite thread about the beauty of open-source and/or grim prevision about REBOL future and/or... well, you know it ;-) While the business model for /Pro, /Command, /Runtime and /Express is quite clear, I find that the concept of "commercial use" of /View and /Core is quite foggy and needs to be clarified. Greetings -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com

 [3/19] from: fsievert:uos at: 21-May-2001 22:15


> >> They are free only on personal, non profit use.. > >>
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> >> Rebol/core "Price: Free for non-commercial use. Commercial licenses are > >> $79 per CPU."
WHAT! Argh... This must have changed. I am sure, /Core License had no non-commercial trash. This is really a bad idea. RT?

 [4/19] from: holger:rebol at: 21-May-2001 13:55


On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:56:39PM +0200, Paolo Russo wrote:
> ... but... being Dan the kind person he is... he could explain us all > what Rebol Tech means for "commercial license" exactly, before we
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> quite clear, I find that the concept of "commercial use" of /View and > /Core is quite foggy and needs to be clarified.
That's because the concept of "commercial use" in general is rather foggy :-). Too many special cases, border cases etc. for a precise wording. As a broad rule of thumb: if you use REBOL on a computer you own personally, and do not use it to generate any income then it is "personal use". If you use it within a commercial environment (on a computer at your work place, on a server in your company etc.) or if you use it in a manner intended to generate revenue then it is "commercial use". There are exceptions though. If you are unsure then please contact us directly, explain how you intend to use REBOL, and we can work out a proper licensing arrangement. -- Holger Kruse [holger--rebol--com]

 [5/19] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 22-May-2001 0:12


----- Original Message ----- From: "Holger Kruse" <[holger--rebol--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:55 PM Subject: [REBOL] Re: It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving critical mass
> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 09:56:39PM +0200, Paolo Russo wrote: > > ... but... being Dan the kind person he is... he could explain us all
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> > /Core is quite foggy and needs to be clarified. > That's because the concept of "commercial use" in general is rather foggy
:-).
> Too many special cases, border cases etc. for a precise wording. > > As a broad rule of thumb: if you use REBOL on a computer you own
personally,
> and do not use it to generate any income then it is "personal use". If you > use it within a commercial environment (on a computer at your work place, > on a server in your company etc.) or if you use it in a manner intended > to generate revenue then it is "commercial use". There are exceptions
though. So it has changed though. I remember the message announcing free redistribution of Core and View even for commercial purposes. View coming out of beta seems to change it ... so now we lost free Rebol product, which can be used for any purpose ... the licencing policy seems to be too strict here. I use /Core for few scripts at my work, mostly some website checking, not so necessary, but I created them because I simply like the language. If I would tell my friends the base of Rebol - /Core is not free, I would have some problems, cause too many other free tools can be found around ... While I bought /Pro license key and am thinking about try to push buying /Command at our company, I still would found commercial use of /Core for free as good signal to computing community ... (runtime doesn't solve it ... - Core is great network capable kind of "shell") -pekr-

 [6/19] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 21-May-2001 17:11


From: "Holger Kruse"
> As a broad rule of thumb: if you use REBOL on a computer you own
personally,
> and do not use it to generate any income then it is "personal use". If
you
> use it within a commercial environment (on a computer at your work
place,
> on a server in your company etc.) or if you use it in a manner
intended
> to generate revenue then it is "commercial use". There are exceptions
though.
> If you are unsure then please contact us directly, explain how you
intend to
> use REBOL, and we can work out a proper licensing arrangement.
Oh, I think I now know the sound of one hand clapping. The lead-in on the main page says, "REBOL/View is Free. Upgrade to Pro for Only $49." This link clicks through to a page where it says, REBOL/View - Free - Downloads in seconds. Only further down the page is there a pronouncement that it may not really be free. This method of lead-in is misleading. It is likely unintentional, but it is misleading, in my opinion. I guess Joanna was closer to being right this morning. Sorry, Joanna. --Scott Jones

 [7/19] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 22-May-2001 0:41


----- Original Message ----- From: "GS Jones" <[gjones05--mail--orion--org]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:11 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving critical mass
> From: "Holger Kruse" > > As a broad rule of thumb: if you use REBOL on a computer you own
<<quoted lines omitted: 19>>
> misleading, in my opinion. I guess Joanna was closer to being right > this morning. Sorry, Joanna.
You are right - it's not too good. Free means free, dot. If someone wants more advanced features - buy /Pro. If someone wants special bundle - contact RT for special license. The simpler the licensing policy is - the better. I am not sure if Holger's explanation of blurred borders of commercial usage helps us. If I would use only one script on my local machine at my work for just one single function - it is still commercial application. It will be VERY hard to fight here against other available solutions. I remember my friend taking one magazine CD and installing Apache + PHP under Windows. I told him to use /Core. Although he doesn't like functional languages, he gave it a try ... but if I should tell him we should pay some 79 USD, he wouldn't probably even looked into it ... -pekr-

 [8/19] from: carl:rebol at: 21-May-2001 15:43


Easiest thing to do is to provide examples: Let's say you work for Ford Motor Company. You come across REBOL and discover its obvious benefits. You replace your $250,000 help desk or manufacturing test suite with a few REBOL scripts. We want you, Ford, to feel obligated to pay something. Don't worry, the Ford management is quite happy paying for such things. They know good things are not free. If you are Joe User and you want to use REBOL to enable others to collaborate with you on building a shared collection of interactive astronomy charts, there is no charge. You know that good things are free. Quite simply, we want the world to enjoy the benefits of REBOL. But, if you're a business, and the benefit is cash or efficiency, then you need to license the software that made it possible. And, we are very open to negotiate on special situations. We recognize that there are many edge cases. Just contact us. -Carl Sassenrath REBOL Technologies At 5/21/01 09:56 PM +0200, you wrote:

 [9/19] from: carl:rebol at: 21-May-2001 16:10


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:

 [10/19] from: phil:harris:zope at: 22-May-2001 0:21


Whether it's a bad idea or not, how would you think that it might be enforced? Surely it would be better practice to have a completely free version, as most people on the list thought there was, rather than some arbitrary business size/profit as the rule as to whether a licence is needed or not. For example, I work for a small department within a medium sized college which is part of a large university. Assume that only the department actually uses REBOL on their machines but. the college and therefore in turn the university gains benefit from that. Who is 'using' REBOL? Should we pay licence fees? Are there 'special' licences for educational establishments? These questions and more either need answering, or there should be a completely free, not necessarily open-source, version of REBOL (preferably some form of View). Phil On Monday 21 May 2001 19:10, Carl Sassenrath wrote:

 [11/19] from: mtiefert:certicom at: 21-May-2001 16:31


Carl -- (First, forgive the Lotus Notes format - that's all I've got at work...) I think the problem is, that the grey area between your Ford and amateur-astronomy examples is too large: - What if I want to use a REBOL emailer instead of or in addition to Lotus Notes at work (because I hate Lotus Notes)? This benefits me personally, but is neutral as far as the company is concerned. Is this noncommercial? - What if I have a few files to manage (say intranet server logs to roll over, or my own list of documentation-projects-in-progress to manage)? I could do it by hand, I could do it with a shell or Perl script, or I could (because I want to learn Rebol and improve my Rebol skills) use Rebol. The company doesn't care. Is this commercial? thanks, Marj Tiefert Technical Writer Carl Sassenrath <[carl--rebol--com]> on 05/21/2001 04:10:57 PM Please respond to [rebol-list--rebol--com] To: [rebol-list--rebol--com] cc: (bcc: Marjorie Tiefert/Certicom) Subject: [REBOL] Re: It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving critical mass 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

 [12/19] from: carl:rebol at: 21-May-2001 18:01


Marj, I get your point. That sounds like personal use to me. -Carl At 5/21/01 04:31 PM -0700, you wrote:

 [13/19] from: depotcity:telus at: 21-May-2001 18:17


Which brings us to the /view runtime. What are the details and eta? T Brownell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sassenrath" <[carl--rebol--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: [REBOL] Re: It's NOT Free.. (was) Re: Re: The future of Rebol - achieving critical mass

 [14/19] from: robbo1mark:aol at: 22-May-2001 4:21


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:

 [15/19] 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:

 [16/19] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 22-May-2001 11:01


Joanna Kurki wrote:
> At 17:26 21.5.2001 -0500, you wrote: > >From: "Joanna Kurki"
<<quoted lines omitted: 16>>
> freely .. (no, I don't really like Pascal-- but what else there are? Java.. > nah..)
Wait a minute, please. If you don't need Rebol/View or /Core on each machine (I mean the whole scripting environment), you can just buy Rebol Runtime and distribute your app (in .exe form) for 1 USD per copy .... And this is fairly acceptable imo.
> It's not only the money.. It's hassle.. I'm not sure how this licensing is > supposed to handle.. Do I haveto take care of it (and sell those scripts > over 100usd per seat to cover lisensing fees) or am I just going to give > our clients link to www.rebol.com along with my scripts?
You could tell your clients to download /View for their "personal" use, but it's very bad example of your business model then :-) Cheers, -pekr-

 [17/19] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 22-May-2001 11:42


> 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! >
Mark, I feel somehow a little bit offended by your email, and because I expressed my opinion re licensing I will not to do so more, but I would like to react to some of your concerns: 1) Noone said RT doesn't deserve the money 2) I already explained that sometimes there are several aspects to make product successfull. It has something to do with its marketing psychology. PPL really don't care about RT has to feed themselves. We talk users here. Users use computers because of certain tasks/applications. Users are willing to use the tool to acomplish given tasks. Does average Joe user care Be Inc. has much harder conditions than Microsoft does? We live in the world full of external conditions. And that's why some of us asked for more free licensing policy, to HELP Rebol become more widespread. That's why it is also important for RT to look at financial partners/investors. 3) I will still use Rebol! I will still invest my free time into it! I bought Pro key 5 min after I discovered the option on RT website. But! - to convince long time PHP users e.g. to consider the tool, you have to offer them some comparable conditions. Each user/server counts. 4) Please don't try to show us your impression we are all lazy dogs ;-) I already heard it even from Carl - "pekr - write some code". I will probably do so from time to time :-), but there are also other roles - publicity being on of them. Many ppl around me know there is some language called Rebol. 12K readers of one of our premiere computer related magazine know there is some Rebol. 5) There was clear message or even regular announcement announcing FREE redistribution of Core (http://www.rebol.com/news0a23.html ). Silent change to the policy is pretty strange to me. Nothing really happens - it just makes life for us - rebol promoters - a way harder .... PS: bear in mind please, that I wish to be the last person, turning the lights off :-) .. the time to join erebol.com forces, to save Linux server situation at least :-) -pekr-

 [18/19] from: kenneth:nwinet at: 22-May-2001 5:13


Hi gang, I'd like to throw another 2 cents into this discussion: I'm a customer. I in turn have customers. I don't care about the product being free except for experimental use so I don't have to part with too much cash just to evaluate whether or not the language can be of any use to me. I already have a compiler in a language that I'm comfortable and capable of programming in and in which I can produce software for profit. There are a lot of factors to consider before I would divert my attention to something else. I mentioned sometime earlier that for me to consider using Rebol means I'd have to pay the $800 for the unlimited license. $50 or $100 or even $1 per user is not a viable option for me. While others may not feel the same, once I buy a tool I want to be done with it. I'm not interested in making a royalty payment. That doesn't mean you can't upsell me by offering me additional tools but I choose not to pay a royalty on those either. I think Joanna Kurki nailed it with the following statement:
>I was hoping Rebol/View to be distributed to some windows/linux-X >PC:s (just guesses. 20 machines, and five of them in house rest on
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
>But 20 lisences.. with that price I could purchase both Delphi6 and >Kylix (= Linux equvalent), make single source tree and distribute
executables
>freely .. (no, I don't really like Pascal-- but what else there are? Java..
nah..)
>It's not only the money.. It's hassle.. I'm not sure how this licensing is >supposed to handle.. Do I haveto take care of it (and sell those scripts >over 100usd per seat to cover lisensing fees) or am I just going to give >our clients link to www.rebol.com along with my scripts?
Hassle in my mind is a big cost factor (it has veto power.) While Rebol very well might be worth parting with $800 for, I do have other things competing for that money. I think I paid a little over $300 for my Delphi 5/pro compiler. I see Delphi 6/pro being advertised for about $1000. Now I paid the $300 and consider anything from $100 to $300 total cost to be the sweet spot for a compiler. However, the only way I'd pay the grand is if I'd already developed a product that I was selling using D5 and could purchase the upgrade from the revenue stream. Otherwise, I've got better things to do with a grand. Please forgive me for saying so, but while Rebol seems cool and all, I do not perceive the current incarnation as being as commercially viable as the Delphi 5 that I've already bought. Others may disagree and that's fine. I'm just offering a perspective here. BTW, when I said I already have a compiler I'm comfortable with I was refering to VB6, not Delphi. I paid the $300 on the chance that I might find D5 useful. My perception, right or wrong, is that I'd pay $50 to $100 in the case of Rebol. But I'd expect certain things in exchange for my money. It turns out that Rebol doesn't even meet these expectations at this time (which I've already outlined in previous comment to this list.) I'm here because I have an interest in the language. RT can market it in any way that fits there business model and the chips will fall as they may. Others can add to this list but there is quite a bit that goes into the business decision of risk factors in deciding to use Rebol for a project: - Cost in terms of dollars and time. - Does it meet a need that I can't satify as well in another way. Is there a less risky way of providing a satisfactory solution. - Is the product stable enough to release. Considering DLL hell, not even Microsoft gets this one right at times. There are certainly other factors, but these three provide a taste. Regards, Ken.

 [19/19] from: ingo:2b1 at: 22-May-2001 13:54


Hi Carl, there are of course some things in the world, that aren't free, quietly changing the license isn't, it costs trust! I still remember Rebols www front page: "Rebol/Core, free now, free forever", and some such statements. Of course you got the right to change it, but, see above. And it's even worse because it's done silently, if you remembered the platforms page and just downloaded what you needed, or upgraded through Rebol, you'll never have seen it (like me). There have always been some issues regarding what you said, and what was in the license, but I was bound to believe you, that you were just doing more important things than thinking about licensing. I'm not so sure any more. Well, the least you should have done would have been to announce it on these forums, I thought they were there to build community, but this works only with trust. Yours truly, Ingo Hohmann

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