Yes, REBOL/Core is still free
[1/6] from: holger::rebol::com at: 22-May-2001 10:43
I would like to address a few issues that have come up in the recent discussion
on REBOL's licensing policy. Hopefully this clarifies some things and better
explains our position and motivation. Sorry for the length of this mail.
1. Core licensing status
Core 2.5 has been released with a specific license. This license is still in effect,
and you can keep using Core 2.5 with that license. The license does not have any
expiration. Yes, there is now a DIFFERENT license available for Core, a commercial
license for US$ 79.00, but this does not invalidate any existing licenses. As a rule,
when there are several licensing options for a product then you can choose which one
you want.
The commercial license for US$ 79.00 actually not only covers Core but Core/Pro
(once it is released), i.e. unlike the free Core license it comes with a commercial
license agreement, a personalized key file etc. Until Core/Pro is released we only
provide commercial licensees with Core 2.5 which is why Core is listed as the product
with the US$ 79.00 price tag, but once Core/Pro is available commercial licensees can
switch to Core/Pro, if they want to, free of additional charge.
2. About Core remaining "free"
We currently do not have any plans to charge individuals for Core, not now and not in
future versions, i.e. if you would like to download Core and write your own scripts,
play around with it, give it to your friends etc., then you are free to do so. We
still intend Core and View to be the center pieces for building the REBOL community.
Commercial licensing is a different story though. Commercial licensing is not
about communities, voluntary participation etc., but about profit, e.g. about
companies creating derivative products from REBOL and selling them, or about
companies using Core as a corner stone of their in-house IT solution in order
to cut cost and reduce development time. In situations like that we would like
to (and actually need to) be involved and get our share. We believe that if
another company profits from our work then it is only fair that we receive a
portion of that, considering the amount of time and money that has gone into Core.
This is not just about licensing fees but also about public recognition of
cases when REBOL has been a useful tool for a company. Knowing those cases and
making them public helps us and the REBOL community as a whole, by increasing
the public recognition of REBOL through joint press releases, partnership
agreements etc.
A "completely free" license that does not even encourage such companies to
contact us and talk to us about their use of REBOL is harmful not just to
us but to the REBOL community. REBOL would remain a "secret", and in the end
we would all lose.
We do not believe that limiting the term "free" in its usual interpretation of
free of charge
to non-commercial use in any way diminishes the spirit of the
promise of Core remaining free in the future. I guess that depends on what is
meant by "free" though. People use that term in different ways. See below.
3. What it means for something to be "free"
Free
is not the same as "free of charge". For an individual "free" may mean
being allowed to use software without paying for it though. We recognize this,
and that's why Core IS free (of charge) for individuals.
For commercial use very few things in life are truly free of charge, in all
situations, so in commercial environments the term "free" is usually more
closely related to "freedom" ("liberty") than to "free or charge".
A few examples:
When you listen to the radio, music is free, right ? (Well, in the US anyway.
In Germany there are public radio fees...) Does that mean you can make recordings
off the radio for your personal use ? Yes, usually. Does it mean you can make
recordings and sell them ? No way. So radio reception is NOT really free then,
is it ? Most people would argue that it IS, but that in the context of commercial
use the term "free" does not apply in the same way, because things get more
complicated, there are different licensing and copyright issues etc. etc. In any
way, for you as a consumer none of these rules in any way limit your ability to
listen to the radio for FREE, right ? That's why people say radio reception is free.
Have you ever seen items in stores (Best Buy etc.) with mail-in rebate stickers on
them ? Sometimes those mail-in rebates are equal to the purchase price of the
product (e.g. for floppy disks or tapes), so you basically get the product for
free, and stores advertise that. Is it free for everyone ? No. Often these offers
only apply to individuals, not companies, there are limits on the number of
rebates you can claim per household, you have to live in the US, you must have
a bank account etc. So they are not free then ? People who "bought" them without
really paying would disagree. They ARE free, but there are exceptions. One
exception is that companies cannot expect to get a year's worth of disk supplies
for backups of their corporate file server without paying a single dime. If such
a company told you that those disks cannot be called free because the company
cannot use this offer to reduce their backup costs to zero, would you take them
seriously ? Probably not. The disks would still be free for you and your friends,
and thus "free" for all practical purposes.
Many, many more examples are possible, in different markets, different countries etc.
Or look at it the other way around: if you claim something is NOT free then the
next question is "how much does it cost ?". If your friend asks you that question
then the answer is "nothing", so now you have a product that is presumably "not
free" but "costs nothing" ? :-) Most people would consider this an unreasonable
argument.
4. Free software
This is one of my pet peeves, so please be patient...
Quoting the key phrase from GNU's so-called "The Free Software Definition"
(www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
Fully agreed so far, but then, of course, FSF, the GNU group, goes off and twists that
idea around to define those "liberties" in a politically and ideologically biased way,
trying to use the term "free" as a weapon in its crusade against traditional
(closed-source) commercial software development...
Still, the basic idea is correct. Free software IS a matter of liberty, not price, it
is
just a matter of picking the right liberties. FSF takes it upon themselves to define
those liberties for others. Personally I don't agree with those liberties and would
rather define my own liberties, thank you very much. In the end what it comes down
to is recognizing that different entities (individuals, companies etc.) need DIFFERENT
liberties, expressed in different licensing terms, instead of a one-size-fits-all GPL,
and that is what the availability of different licensing options (for users,
corporations etc.) is all about. It caters to their individual needs, nothing else, and,
to me, this is in an ironic way actually in better accordance with the key spirit of
GNU's
Free Software Definition
than even GPL itself is. Companies seem to prefer it, too.
For a user the most important liberty may be the liberty to not have to pay for
a product before using it, because for individuals money is often the critical
resource. Fully accepted, a legitimate position.
For a corporation things can be different. Here is an example scenario:
A company intends to develop and sell a new software package. As a first step
an in-house feasibility study is performed, during which, in a very short period
of time, a small subset of the application is developed. That application is never
intended to be sold, so redistribution licensing is not an issue, and in order to
save time, engineers integrate and customize some "free" source code and perhaps
some "free" binaries, libraries, support tools etc. into the application.
The study is a success, and development on the full application starts. As much code
from the original prototype as possible is supposed to be reused, because the tight
time frame for a 1.0 release only allows for "adding new features", not for "reengineering
the whole product". This means some of the "free stuff" now requires redistribution
licensing. At that time the legal department realizes that, unfortunately, some of
the "free stuff" is under GPL (not LGPL), so it cannot be included in a closed-source
application. Open-source is not an option, so this means some of the "free stuff" has
to
be removed, parts of the application have to be rewritten, some of the features in
the "free stuff" have to be spec'ed out and then reimplemented under white room conditions,
by a separate engineering time, the release date is pushed back, customers switch to
a
competitor's product. The company loses millions.
Sound familar ? Did this happen in your company, too ? :-) These kinds of things
have been very common in the last few years.
For a company "free software" rarely means "software free of charge". It usually
means "software that legally lets us do what we need to do" and "software that provides
us with flexibility in the way we can use and redistribute the software in the future".
The liberty this company needs is none of the four "GNU liberties", it is
flexibility on the part of the licensor to cater to the licensee's needs, and
recognition and acceptance of the licensee's business plan, without letting
ideology get in the way.
Some users have made the mistake in this discussion to project their own definitions
of what those liberties implied by the term "free software" should be upon corporations.
Usually corporations look at things in a completely different way. Many corporations
WANT
to use commercial licensing and specifically ask for it, even if there is a price tag
attached, just to be on the safe side in the case of audits or law suits. In that case
many companies may consider REBOL to be more "free" than a lot of "free stuff" out there.
So please don't assume that your definition of "free" is shared by everybody. I can
assure you that it is not.
I feel very strongly about this and could go on and on forever, having witnessed how,
e.g., large portions of the Amiga commercial software market along with many useful
applications were literally destroyed by the effects of GPL on the platform, and
how many of these companies would have absolutely LOVED to pay license fees in
order to at least stay in business, but I will stop now :-).
5. Flexibility
I mentioned flexibility as the key for licensing. US$ 79.00 and US$ 99.00 are
examples and starting points for simple cases, e.g. a single Core/Pro or View/Pro
license on one machine, no other business relations, licenses, no bulk discounts,
no redistribution licensing etc.
These are NOT the only options. In addition to bulk discounts there is also
Runtime licensing (with per-client payments or with a one-time payment for
unlimited client licenses). There may be other options as well, such as educational
licensing, support agreements and consulting agreements. We are also very interested
in knowing what REBOL is used for in companies, and in some cases joint ventures and/or
joint press releases may be interesting for everyone involved. If you are interested
in licensing REBOL please talk to us and explain what you want to do. We may be able
to work out a solution that is even better for everyone's business than just plain
free of charge
would be :-).
--
Holger Kruse
[holger--rebol--com]
[2/6] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 22-May-2001 11:36
Lots of snipping...
Holger Kruse wrote:
> 1. Core licensing status
> Core 2.5 has been released with a specific license. This license is still in effect,
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> when there are several licensing options for a product then you can choose which one
> you want.
This works for me.
> 2. About Core remaining "free"
Good to here...
> 3. What it means for something to be "free"
>
Interisting...
> 4. Free software
I didn't read your whole thing here, but I agree that free (free free, not commercial
free, and not free from commercials) software movement can be a bit
zealous. I havent heard too many of these guys on the list in a while though.
> These are NOT the only options. In addition to bulk discounts there is also
> Runtime licensing (with per-client payments or with a one-time payment for
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> Holger Kruse
> [holger--rebol--com]
I will keep it mind, keep up the good work.
--Ryan
[3/6] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 22-May-2001 20:55
Holger is right.
I work at a fortune top 500 company, one of Europe's largest bank-insurance
(all-finance) corporations.
We have used Rebol in some little projects and are currently developing a
major online finanial solution in Rebol (cost so far over $300.000). All
server based logic is in Command, and I ordered /Express and /Pro licenses
as well. I hope to be live before the end of the year.
As financial insitituions are careful about their image I can't give a
custimer quote (yet), but once we go live I'l make sure there is one.
The kind of money Rebol asks for their products is really peanuts to us,
especially compared to our other software. I can't buy VisualAge for Java
for the Command price (and then I have command on all platforms). Let alone
Websphere. And I have yet to see Java outperform Rebol, both in memory
consumption and CPU usage.
We kid around here that we can serve 50 concurrent clients with Rebol in
(fast) cgi in the same amount of memory that it takes to start up Websphere.
So that's for the competition.
Draw your own conclusions.
As for other software:
- I do like the Oracle stuff AND need it on linux and Solaris, but sometimes
we need it el cheapo as well. Hence I made a binding to the mysql lib (see
www.erebol.com)
- I try to provide you with any infrastructural software I develop, see the
LDC goes Rugby post yesterday, erebol itself, design by contract and
localization.
Is it time for the Rebol Standard Library? As I pay $25 anyway to host
erebol.com , I can provide hosting. Anybody?
Thanks,
Maarten
----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Kruse" <[holger--rebol--com]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--net]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 7:43 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Yes, REBOL/Core is still free
> I would like to address a few issues that have come up in the recent
discussion
> on REBOL's licensing policy. Hopefully this clarifies some things and
better
> explains our position and motivation. Sorry for the length of this mail.
>
> 1. Core licensing status
>
> Core 2.5 has been released with a specific license. This license is still
in effect,
> and you can keep using Core 2.5 with that license. The license does not
have any
> expiration. Yes, there is now a DIFFERENT license available for Core, a
commercial
> license for US$ 79.00, but this does not invalidate any existing licenses.
As a rule,
> when there are several licensing options for a product then you can choose
which one
> you want.
>
> The commercial license for US$ 79.00 actually not only covers Core but
Core/Pro
> (once it is released), i.e. unlike the free Core license it comes with a
commercial
> license agreement, a personalized key file etc. Until Core/Pro is released
we only
> provide commercial licensees with Core 2.5 which is why Core is listed as
the product
> with the US$ 79.00 price tag, but once Core/Pro is available commercial
licensees can
> switch to Core/Pro, if they want to, free of additional charge.
>
> 2. About Core remaining "free"
>
> We currently do not have any plans to charge individuals for Core, not now
and not in
> future versions, i.e. if you would like to download Core and write your
own scripts,
> play around with it, give it to your friends etc., then you are free to do
so. We
> still intend Core and View to be the center pieces for building the REBOL
community.
> Commercial licensing is a different story though. Commercial licensing is
not
> about communities, voluntary participation etc., but about profit, e.g.
about
> companies creating derivative products from REBOL and selling them, or
about
> companies using Core as a corner stone of their in-house IT solution in
order
> to cut cost and reduce development time. In situations like that we would
like
> to (and actually need to) be involved and get our share. We believe that
if
> another company profits from our work then it is only fair that we receive
a
> portion of that, considering the amount of time and money that has gone
into Core.
> This is not just about licensing fees but also about public recognition of
> cases when REBOL has been a useful tool for a company. Knowing those cases
and
> making them public helps us and the REBOL community as a whole, by
increasing
> the public recognition of REBOL through joint press releases, partnership
> agreements etc.
>
> A "completely free" license that does not even encourage such companies to
> contact us and talk to us about their use of REBOL is harmful not just to
> us but to the REBOL community. REBOL would remain a "secret", and in the
end
> we would all lose.
>
> We do not believe that limiting the term "free" in its usual
interpretation of
> "free of charge" to non-commercial use in any way diminishes the spirit of
the
> promise of Core remaining free in the future. I guess that depends on what
is
> meant by "free" though. People use that term in different ways. See below.
>
> 3. What it means for something to be "free"
>
> "Free" is not the same as "free of charge". For an individual "free" may
mean
> being allowed to use software without paying for it though. We recognize
this,
> and that's why Core IS free (of charge) for individuals.
>
> For commercial use very few things in life are truly free of charge, in
all
> situations, so in commercial environments the term "free" is usually more
> closely related to "freedom" ("liberty") than to "free or charge".
>
> A few examples:
>
> When you listen to the radio, music is free, right ? (Well, in the US
anyway.
> In Germany there are public radio fees...) Does that mean you can make
recordings
> off the radio for your personal use ? Yes, usually. Does it mean you can
make
> recordings and sell them ? No way. So radio reception is NOT really free
then,
> is it ? Most people would argue that it IS, but that in the context of
commercial
> use the term "free" does not apply in the same way, because things get
more
> complicated, there are different licensing and copyright issues etc. etc.
In any
> way, for you as a consumer none of these rules in any way limit your
ability to
> listen to the radio for FREE, right ? That's why people say radio
reception is free.
> Have you ever seen items in stores (Best Buy etc.) with mail-in rebate
stickers on
> them ? Sometimes those mail-in rebates are equal to the purchase price of
the
> product (e.g. for floppy disks or tapes), so you basically get the product
for
> free, and stores advertise that. Is it free for everyone ? No. Often these
offers
> only apply to individuals, not companies, there are limits on the number
of
> rebates you can claim per household, you have to live in the US, you must
have
> a bank account etc. So they are not free then ? People who "bought" them
without
> really paying would disagree. They ARE free, but there are exceptions. One
> exception is that companies cannot expect to get a year's worth of disk
supplies
> for backups of their corporate file server without paying a single dime.
If such
> a company told you that those disks cannot be called free because the
company
> cannot use this offer to reduce their backup costs to zero, would you take
them
> seriously ? Probably not. The disks would still be free for you and your
friends,
> and thus "free" for all practical purposes.
>
> Many, many more examples are possible, in different markets, different
countries etc.
> Or look at it the other way around: if you claim something is NOT free
then the
> next question is "how much does it cost ?". If your friend asks you that
question
> then the answer is "nothing", so now you have a product that is presumably
not
> free
but "costs nothing" ? :-) Most people would consider this an
unreasonable
[4/6] from: chris:starforge at: 22-May-2001 20:36
#22-May-01# Message from *Holger Kruse*:
Hi Holger,
> The study is a success, and development on the full application starts. As
> much code from the original prototype as possible is supposed to be
<<quoted lines omitted: 11>>
> Sound familar ? Did this happen in your company, too ? :-) These kinds of
> things have been very common in the last few years.
Just a point, I don't want to flare up a GPL war on here similar to the one
on MooBunny at present but this is FUD. There is nothing in the GPL which
states "you may not contact the author to negotiate special terms", there is
nothing in the GPL which says "the author may not exempt selected bodies
from the GPL at his discretion". If a company uses GPL code in a prototype
and then reimplements it in the production code then they are causing their
own problem. Perhaps they should actually consider contacting the author of
the modules to negotiate a commercial exemption? Perhaps they should have
realised what would happen in the first place? Sure, OSS nuts will refuse,
but there's no harm in asking is there? Some authors will be quite willing
to allow commercial use provided they get royalties or a lump sum. Slating
the GPLed code simply because you can't stick it in a commercial app and
forget about the guys who wrote it (like M$ and their TCP stack) is not what
I'd expect from a responsible company.
But perhaps you are aiming this more at the people who said things along the
lines of "how can I convince them to use REBOL when there are free
alternatives like Perl or Python"? If so, you haven't answered the
question. Simply using Perl does not force you to open source your scripts,
only the FUDmongers claim otherwise, often because they have a vested
interest in scaring everyone off these alternatives. If you use a bunch
of GPL perl scripts in your app, then things are different, but just using
Perl has no more effect than using gcc to compile your C++ classes.
Besides, I think this is a long way from the "free" that most people here
understood - free as in no charge, free with no "except for..". The free
which was prominent on your website until recently. Most people here aren't
complaining about the fact that this has changed so much as the fact that
we weren't even told about the changes! We didn't even get a warning. PR
gaff or whatever, this does not instil trust in the developers who you need
to keep to stop REBOL slipping into obscurity. We may only be your users,
but we are users who can just throw in the towel and go elsewhere if we
want. There's nothing keeping peole here except their appeciation of the
language, an appreciation many are willing to pay hansomly for. But by the
same token, p**sing people off will not win you friends.
> I feel very strongly about this and could go on and on forever, having witnessed how,
> e.g., large portions of the Amiga commercial software market along with many useful
> applications were literally destroyed by the effects of GPL on the platform, and
Ok, you've lost me there. I've never heard of any Amiga commercial software
marking being "destroyed by the effects of GPL software." I can count the
number of major GPLed Amiga apps on one hand. I've heard of the commercial
market being destroyed by lying, incompetent parent company owners who change
their minds every 3 months and go bust every 18, by exponentially falling
userbase figures and by the utter lack of decent commercial software (a few
outstanding cases exempted) but GPL software has never really come top of
my "nailing the Amiga coffin lid shut" list.
Chris
--
New sig in the works
Explorer 2260, Designer and Coder
http://www.starforge.co.uk
--
FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing. Details at ... uh, when
the little hand is on the ....
[5/6] from: holger:rebol at: 22-May-2001 13:49
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:36:07PM +0000, Chris wrote:
> Just a point, I don't want to flare up a GPL war on here similar to the one
> on MooBunny at present but this is FUD. There is nothing in the GPL which
> states "you may not contact the author to negotiate special terms", there is
> nothing in the GPL which says "the author may not exempt selected bodies
> from the GPL at his discretion".
True. Unfortunately a lot of open-source projects have many contributors,
making it difficult to even identify a person or group authorized to
negotiate on behalf of the authors. Linux has had that problem, e.g.
In real life a the legal department of a company trying to license
software for inclusion in a commercial product will try to find a
commercial partner to license from, not a group of hobbyists. Anything else
is asking for trouble.
> Slating
> the GPLed code simply because you can't stick it in a commercial app and
> forget about the guys who wrote it (like M$ and their TCP stack) is not what
> I'd expect from a responsible company.
AFAIR Microsoft's TCP stack is based on early BSD code, not covered by GPL.
> Besides, I think this is a long way from the "free" that most people here
> understood - free as in no charge, free with no "except for..". The free
> which was prominent on your website until recently. Most people here aren't
> complaining about the fact that this has changed so much as the fact that
> we weren't even told about the changes!
For individuals there has been no change. For companies we have been
restructing licensing conditions for quite a while... You are right
though, formal announcements on a lot of things have been lacking. The
News
section on our web site was behind by almost a year until recently,
and we are still catching up... Also keep in mind that things are still
changing. Once the complete product line-up has been released (Command,
Core/Pro etc.) everything should get more organized :).
> Ok, you've lost me there. I've never heard of any Amiga commercial software
> marking being "destroyed by the effects of GPL software."
Yes, because the companies affected by these problems silently left the
Amiga and are rarely interviewed. Typically journalists asks users who
are still using the Amiga, and obviously they primarily complain about
lack of leadership from the parent company, because that is all they see.
A valid complaint, but hardly the full truth. Talk to companies who used
to produce postscript software, compilers, networking software etc. when
you get the chance, and listen to their side of the story, and the reasons
why they left the platform.
--
Holger Kruse
[holger--rebol--com]
[6/6] from: chris:starforge:demon at: 23-May-2001 10:17
Holger Kruse wrote:
> True. Unfortunately a lot of open-source projects have many contributors,
> making it difficult to even identify a person or group authorized to
> negotiate on behalf of the authors. Linux has had that problem, e.g.
Hmm.. maybe the people involved just haven't had enough experience in
dealing with OSS? For virtually every package I use on Linux I can
identify a contact address, even if that is not the original author
it is possible to track the author down by contacting the current
maintainer. And I'm just one person who only started using Linux
in earnest 6 months ago..
> In real life a the legal department of a company trying to license
> software for inclusion in a commercial product will try to find a
> commercial partner to license from, not a group of hobbyists. Anything else
> is asking for trouble.
Ah, the "companies will only deal with companies" attitude that seems to
grip legal departments like the Black Death. That's what I've always
found rather amusing in a way - they are willing to use the software
these "hobbyists" have written, with none of the rediculous paraphinalia
companies carry around, yet they refuse to actually talk to them about
licensing.
The GPL may have it's problems, by they are nothing against the utter
idiocy and duplicity of lawyers.
>>the GPLed code simply because you can't stick it in a commercial app and
>>forget about the guys who wrote it (like M$ and their TCP stack) is not what
>>I'd expect from a responsible company.
>>
>
> AFAIR Microsoft's TCP stack is based on early BSD code, not covered by GPL.
That's what I meant - Microsoft could do that because the BSD license
does not prevent commercial bodies from dropping the code in a
commercial project and forgetting that it was written by someone else.
The GPL prevents this by either forcing the company to contact the
author to talk terms, or release the code.
> and we are still catching up... Also keep in mind that things are still
> changing. Once the complete product line-up has been released (Command,
> Core/Pro etc.) everything should get more organized :).
Please, I hope so!
Chris
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted