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