Mark Holmquist wrote:
2. try to limit dissemination during alpha and beta to those who are
likely to test and contribute (I really don't want to inflict really
early code on folks who simply want a usable tool - I figure that's
doing them a disservice) (note: since the alpha and beta code will be
available as source, under GPL, there's nothing stopping further
dissemination - just that I'm not going to be pushing the early code on
the world)
This is directly contrary to:
Pledge $25 or more
Access to software on release date - plus 5-year system-wide
identity and crypto credentials.
<etc>
I wasn't just making things up, there it is in black and white. There
is one more offering server-side code on the alpha release date, and
it's more money. You charge people extra to get the code.
It's not contradictory at all. If you pay, you get:
- access to our distribution server to download code
- access to a hosted version of the server-side components
Since the code will be GPLd (or other open source license) it is freely
re-distributable. It's just that WE won't be re-distributing it openly
until we get to a reasonably shaken down release 1.0.
This is directly contrary to your statement that this is open
software. It's definitely contrary to it being free software.
So please, stop spreading it here. If it's not free software, we don't
want it.
The goal is to raise some cash so we can spend our time coding - we
don't have deep pockets and we don't have a big grant or an employer
paying the freight. So... if you have a suggestion on an alternate way
to frame a Kickstarter fund-raising effort, and what to offer folks who
contribute, please pipe up.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
