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

Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is sti

 [1/17] from: belymt::saunalahti::fi at: 22-May-2001 23:33


Hi Holger, I have to admit you are really good writer.. But still please fix (or ask your web maintainer to fix) that Rebol/View entry on http://www.rebol.com/ web page. That big bold FREE is still (however you bend sematics in your text) a direct lie (sorry for using such a nasty word). In now days world when almost everything is changing around in fast pace developers must have trust to tools they use for living. And trust of developers is one thing you can't afford lose.. Should I trust you? Are you still around in two years, or in five? I have used (since Commodore/escom/whatever went belly-up) various PC operating systems like OS2 warp (that was dropped by IBM) and BeOS 4.0-4.5 (development dropped) not to mention numerous application sw/hw I have purchased (on my own use and for company use)... I have learned NOT to trust companies blindly or easily, there are too many trying to get quick buck and then drop out without a warning...
>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.
It's good that you write these things down.. It would have been lot better you to think this all up before latest Rebol web site update. (most of sementic tackling removed.. )
>So please don't assume that your definition of "free" is shared by >everybody. I can >assure you that it is not.
Yes, Agree on this one. And you did not explain that your free is not free beforehand.. Long story and why? Because you assumed your definition of free was known and accepted... You can't win trust back just with long talks about your rights to define words.
>5. Flexibility >I mentioned flexibility as the key for licensing. US$ 79.00 and US$ 99.00 are
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>discounts, >no redistribution licensing etc.
There is no mention of ANY licensing alternatives on your web site.. Just $99/CPU on "FREE Rebol/View"
>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: 11>>
>just plain >"free of charge" would be :-).
Ok.. I'll send you E-mail for potential use of Rebol/core (Although my Boss asked me to drop Rebol as 'a hopeless case' .. ) Joanna

 [2/17] from: holger::rebol::com at: 22-May-2001 14:29

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is


On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:33:50PM +0300, Joanna Kurki wrote:
> I have to admit you are really good writer.. But still please fix (or ask > your web maintainer to fix) that Rebol/View entry on http://www.rebol.com/ > web page. That big bold FREE is still (however you bend sematics in your > text) a direct lie (sorry for using such a nasty word).
Why ? View IS free, in the same way Core is, for non-commercial use. View/Pro is not free. If you download the View/Pro binary then, without a license key, you have a legally licensed copy of View, for non-commercial use. You can chose to upgrade to a licensed version of View/Pro, at which point there is a charge, but nobody forces you to.
> There is no mention of ANY licensing alternatives on your web site.. Just > $99/CPU on "FREE Rebol/View"
There are "contact us" links all over the place. -- Holger Kruse [holger--rebol--com]

 [3/17] from: ryanc:iesco-dms at: 22-May-2001 14:55


I dont see it as a lie, but I do see it as misleading for commercial customers. I would be put off. I think it should be changed, or a least a footnote added. Consider that however you interpet it, it can be construed as a lie, or misleading to others. Bad for credibility. Bad first impression. --Ryan Holger Kruse wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:33:50PM +0300, Joanna Kurki wrote: > > I have to admit you are really good writer.. But still please fix (or ask
<<quoted lines omitted: 16>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
-- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. -Einstein

 [4/17] from: agem::crosswinds::net at: 23-May-2001 0:24

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core i


In a way /view-license is like Holgers open-source example: you try it, you need to use your prototype for 1.0 - opsala, thats a hit! using open source means you have to open your source - can be expressed in money. Using view means doing stuff usually done with browsers. At least this is the first impression - free and mighty as in »browser«, easy as in »rebol«: the REB. Then you have to equip each visitor with a $100-viewer suddenly. that hurts. Runtime? $1/visitor * millions because of /.dotting - uncalculable. And download size ways to big without recycling (download runtime once ok, but for each 4k-script? hm. Java looks small.) Don't know which version can harder hit. Volker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Am 22.05.01, 22:55:16, schrieb Ryan Cole <[ryanc--iesco-dms--com]> zum Thema [REBOL] Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is still free:
> I dont see it as a lie, but I do see it as misleading for commercial
customers. I would be put off. I think it should be changed, or a least a footnote added.

 [5/17] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 23-May-2001 6:17

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is


Volker Nitsch wrote:
> In a way /view-license is like Holgers open-source example: > you try it, you need to use your prototype for 1.0
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> Then you have to equip each visitor with a $100-viewer suddenly. that > hurts.
Yes, you are right - the price is high enough to reach Lotus Notes licenses in our company, and you simply can't compare both products ... But then maybe your users could use View just for "personal" use? ;-)
> Runtime? $1/visitor * millions because of /.dotting - uncalculable. > And download size ways to big without recycling > (download runtime once ok, but for each 4k-script? hm. Java looks > small.)
I don't know how Runtime works, but wouldn't it be possible to add some decryption mechanism (small script) into your Runtime app, and then distribute your apps in form of compressed, encrypted "binaries"? -pekr-

 [6/17] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 23-May-2001 10:32

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core


View/Pro commecrial is $99 (at least it was for me ;-) --Maarten ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paolo Russo" <[pa--russo--perd--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10:04 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is still free

 [7/17] from: pa::russo::perd::com at: 23-May-2001 11:50


>View/Pro commecrial is $99 (at least it was for me ;-) >--Maarten
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
>confusing. >>
Thanks Maarten, this is better than a detective story :-) So it seems that /View/Commercial = /View/Pro. This has a lot of sense and it is a lot different from a simple /View for commercial use . Can we try to recap? 1. /Core ==> FREE, but it has to be used ONLY for non commercial purposes; 2. /View ==> FREE, but it has to be used ONLY for non commercial purposes; 3. /Core/Pro ==> $79 per CPU 4. /View/Pro ==> $99 per CPU (but you can have it at a discounted price of $49 for non commercial purposes?) Is this a grid that Joanna can approve, too? ;-) -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com

 [8/17] from: m:koopmans2:chello:nl at: 23-May-2001 12:16


Seems OK. Any RT official out there to approve this? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paolo Russo" <[pa--russo--perd--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:50 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is still free

 [9/17] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 23-May-2001 5:44


From: "Paolo Russo"
<snip> > Consider it: I'm trying to promote REBOL actively and I will try NOT > to show your site to potential users in order to better achieve my > goal. <snip>
As a way of reinforcing this point, I have found myself using the same strategy. When I do give links, I still use links to the "REBOL in a Nutshell" and Ten Steps . These were the two pages that amazed me near 3 years ago as brief oversites to the power of REBOL. Currently, one has to look hard through the website to get a quick overview of the language. Pointing to the library of scripts is not beneficial, because they do not provide a cohesive overview. The Demos visually hint at the power but one has to download the program to run them. The code is retrievable but requires a bit of work. I would suggest making it very easy to see just how simple the coding can be. This is one of the main strengths of REBOL. As a summary on the website, I would seriously consider clarifying the pricing scheme. It is fine to stress "Free for Personal Use" but I would have to add that "... for Personal Use" part. Second I would reinstitute the brief overview pages for the language to give people a brief idea of the power and simplicity of REBOL. I would add a brief overview of the simplicity of /View dialect. And I would make these links *very* easy to find from the main page and product description pages. Just my thoughts. ("Opinions are like ***holes, everyone seems to have one!" don't recall the personality that said this one, but the idea has unfortunately stuck.) And, by the way, thanks for your careful explanation of the pricing scheme. --Scott Jones

 [10/17] from: belymt:saunalahti:fi at: 23-May-2001 14:26


>Thanks Maarten, >this is better than a detective story :-)
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
>4. /View/Pro ==> $99 per CPU (but you can have it at a discounted price of >$49 for non commercial purposes?)
Minor missing detail are possible volume discounts, but so far I have seen no numbers on them... And possibility to create lesser costly /View/Pro based programs with /Runtime ???
>Is this a grid that Joanna can approve, too? ;-)
Sounds as logical as can be although this price thing is nothing to do with my approval.. I have seen plenty other people here being confused or totally mistaken by Rebol licensing. I was just first individual pointing to fact that some list readers have not read web pages lately. I only wish that this scheme would have been explained more clearly on Rebol page.. Less confusion => more happy clients. My personal grief (and disappoinment) in this issue is that this pricing get this tool quite impossible for me to sell it. I have no killer application to show any added value. No way to force-feed additional N*100USD cost to client (we are talking small business here N would be in single numbers on each company). I'll add some lines from my reply to your earlier post.. .. I'll save nerves by sending only one mail to ignore :-)
>Scenario 3: Distributing an open commercial script through Internet >$99 per development workstation
That Scenario 3: will work only IF script users don't do anything commercial with your script.. If I make /View script to our company use (for configuring remote embedded boxes we manufacture, for potentially realistic example) and want to give it to our clients (who have purchased and installed those boxes to their clients) they all have to buy USD$100/cpu lisences too. Unless there is some way to make scripts usable without having full /View installed???
>In some case the price is near to Lotus Notes one, but the TCO (Total Cost >of Ownership) should be just a fraction.
Personally I have never used Notes so I can't see what value it gives (except nice name) against it's high price.. Same problem now with Rebol.. It's not absolutely the money.. (hey. I have DVD player on my pc) It's about getting a reason to spend (and ask others in company and our clients to spend) it to this particular item. Joanna

 [11/17] from: pa:russo:perd at: 23-May-2001 10:21


>Volker Nitsch wrote: >> In a way /view-license is like Holgers open-source example:
<<quoted lines omitted: 10>>
> > hurts. >Yes, you are right - the price is high enough to reach Lotus Notes li
No, it isn't, if my understanding is correct. Scenario 1: Intranet N clients * $99 + eventually /Command or /Serve fee. But you can contact RT to find a more suiting agreement. Scenario 2: Distributing a commercial application through Internet An unlimited /Runtime fee + $99 per development workstation Scenario 3: Distributing an open commercial script through Internet $99 per development workstation How much am I wrong, Holger? In some case the price is near to Lotus Notes one, but the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) should be just a fraction. -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com

 [12/17] from: pa:russo:perd at: 23-May-2001 10:04


>I dont see it as a lie, but I do see it as misleading for commercial >customers. I would be put off. I think it should be changed, or a >least a footnote added. > >Consider that however you interpet it, it can be construed as a lie, >or misleading to others. Bad for credibility. Bad first impression. > >--Ryan >
I agree with Ryan, Holger. Thanks to your extensive explanation now I can understand your price policy quite well and I can share most of it, but _ONLY_ thanks to your extensive explanations. REBOL's site is a mess from this point of view. Misunderstandings are really easy and the ambiguity of message will scare off most corporate guys. I'd be scared off, if I had not known you quite well. For example, you explained us that the $79 license fee is intended for the soon-to-release /Core/Pro. Now I know it. But how can I guess it from your site? Again, "$99 per CPU, contact us" is a far different message from single license for commercial use $99, discounts on multiple licenses, contact us . IMHO the first is targeted ONLY to corporate realities, the second is smoother. Another one: how much it costs the /View/Pro commercial license? $99+49? These are all details, but it's the overall impression that is quite confusing. Consider it: I'm trying to promote REBOL actively and I will try NOT to show your site to potential users in order to better achieve my goal. Perhaps I'm excessive and I'm wrong, but this is the feedback I think I have to give you in good faith. Technically speaking, I consider REBOL a quantum leap. I DO WANT it to be a success. -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com

 [13/17] from: pa::russo::perd::com at: 23-May-2001 15:00

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Cor


>>Thanks Maarten, >>
<<quoted lines omitted: 13>>
>have seen no numbers on them... And possibility to create lesser >costly /View/Pro based programs with /Runtime ???
Cost for /Command/Core/Runtime were really reasonable on a $1 per copy basis. Guess they still are.
>>Is this a grid that Joanna can approve, too? ;-) >Sounds as logical as can be although this price thing is nothing to
<<quoted lines omitted: 21>>
>Unless there is some way to make scripts usable without having full >/View installed???
This could be a /Runtime scenario, but... I think we did a lot of noise about this "pricing" issue. My experience tells me that RT listen to sensible opinions and we have to give them just a bit of time to adjust their aim and their site, if they think they should. Hopefully, in a short time our doubts will be solved by a quick glance to the RT's website. Meanwhile we can go on with our favourite hobby: to suggest RT what impossible features we ABSOLUTELY want in their next release. For free, it's obvious. :-) -- Paolo Russo [pa--russo--perd--com] _________________ PERD s.r.l. Virtual Technologies for Real Solutions http://www.perd.com

 [14/17] from: cyphre:volny:cz at: 23-May-2001 14:04

Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core


> When I do give links, I still use links to the "REBOL in a Nutshell" and > "Ten Steps". These were the two pages that amazed me near 3 years ago
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> not provide a cohesive overview. The Demos visually hint at the power > but one has to download the program to run them. The code is...
If we had REBOL plug-in....We could've presented the power of REBOL directly in browser ;-) regards, Cyphre

 [15/17] from: phil:harris:zope at: 23-May-2001 15:26


Sometime ago someone was doing a Java version of rebol, might it be used to build an applet? Search the maillist. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Smolak" <[cyphre--volny--cz]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:04 PM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Why Wiev is still claimed to be free??? (was) Re: Yes, REBOL/Core is still free

 [16/17] from: holger:rebol at: 23-May-2001 6:20


On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 11:50:44AM +0200, Paolo Russo wrote:
> So it seems that /View/Commercial = /View/Pro. > This has a lot of sense and it is a lot different from a simple
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> 2. /View ==> FREE, but it has to be used ONLY for non commercial purposes; > 3. /Core/Pro ==> $79 per CPU
Yes, and there will be a (cheaper) licensing option for non-commercial use of Core/Pro as well.
> 4. /View/Pro ==> $99 per CPU (but you can have it at a discounted > price of $49 for non commercial purposes?)
Or put in a different way, there are three categories: - Core, View: free for non-commercial use. - Core/Pro, View/Pro, for non-commercial use: cheap licensing - Core/Pro, View/Pro, for commercial use: slightly more expensive licensing. -- Holger Kruse [holger--rebol--com]

 [17/17] from: kenneth:nwinet at: 23-May-2001 20:39


May I add my support for your comment with a true anecdote, Joanna?
> My personal grief (and disappoinment) in this issue is that this pricing > get this tool quite impossible for me to sell it. I have no killer > application to show any added value. No way to force-feed additional > N*100USD cost to client (we are talking small business here N would be in > single numbers on each company).
I have a friend that I'm very proud of that wrote an application a few years ago. Other than putting up a website he's done no discernable selling of his product. However, a number of resellers found his website and they are selling his product. He went from $10k sales his first year to the neighborhood of half a million this year. There was nothing particularly special about his product other than the fact that is was well written and feature rich. It's simply a restaurant point-of-sale software like hundreds of others that have been written (well, really good POS s/w.) The point of my story is that it is successful because others have picked up the ball and run with it because they are motivated to do so. Money is a great motivator. He sells it cheap to them and they make a lot of money in return. My point is it does not matter how wonderful Rebol is. It will die like a lot of other wonderful things if it doesn't have the support of a motivated community. Unless they plan on turning it into a religion, then money is generally the motivator of choice (ok, wise guys, I left out power as a motivator - on purpose.) So it does not matter how great Rebol is. What matters is if RT can come up with a business model that insures the success of the community that supports them. They have to charge someone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems they've chosen to charge the communities customers directly, rather than indirectly. If so, here's an idea. Why not toss the saintly robes and dive right into the pit of multilevel marketing. Rebol would seem to be a perfect way to write an automated script perhaps with email notification -- "hey, you've been added to our pyramid automatically. To see how much money you've got coming, just click the link to our website." <click> "Type in your visa number and the money will just start rolling in...." Uh oh, too easy! Now we're all in trouble! ;)

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