Vey well put Mark! Thanks for the info on licenses. Suprisingly, it seems to me that you and RT might share some ideology.
--Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello Gabriele / Gregg > > Do you reasonably expect to be able to make money > from the commercial use of your REBOL scripts? > > If you do think so and there is an identifiable market > for your "product" that will pay your asking price > or demand driven price(s) - volume pricing & all that - then if you don't want to >penalize the non-commercial hobbyist then use a "free for non-commercial use" license >and charge "commercial" users the appropriate fee. > > Alternatively if you want your scripts to be able to be used in a commercial >products as well as free software then the BSD style licenses allow for this without >necessitating all future works be "open source". > > If you want to ensure that nobody can unfairly take your work and build it into >their own proprietary product and unfairly benefit from it then the GPL is your best >bet as it is quite strict regarding it's terms of usage and compliance requirements. > > This is aside from the "ethical" issues of proprietary software. > > If you just want your software to be USED as much as possible then explicitly make >it PUBLIC DOMAIN then anybody is free do whatever they will with it. > > Whilst I personally agree with the goals and means of the GPL to protect and advance >"free software" within the current legislative climate my prefernce is for public >domain as this removes the need & cost of ensuring license compliance. > > How do you really ensure absolute global compliance with the terms of whichever >license you choose to use without having to resort to severely restrictive methods >which border on totalitarian? > > The answer is of course you can't, it is impossible! > Even more so with binary only proprietary software because in that instance it is >even harder to discover if somebody is unfairly stealing your work. > > Without trusting the honesty of people to comply with your license and use the >software under your chosen terms you have to accept that there will always be people >who will disregard your terms at best or blatantly abuse and steal from you at worst, >whichever license & terms you decide upon. > > Do you really want the hassles of litigation & all the costs of trying to enforce >compliance or prove non-compliance with your license terms? this costs time and / or >money (lots!) and / or placing restrictions and burdens on your users. > > Also how do you define "free for non-commercial use"? > What about the small guy working from home who just happens to love REBOL and see's >the benefit of using it to help him along in his business, there are loads of >potential ambiguities here. > > Given the precarious nature of software patents, copyrights and other intellectual >"property" laws inherent within the software industry I can see why we have software >licensesto "protect" developers or to ensure the "freedoms" or "restrictons" upon >users > but from my perspective for small developers / hobbyists if you release software >whether it be in binary or source form the easiest choice is just to make it PUBLIC >DOMAIN. > > This is the least cost, least hassle solution. > > This doesn't answer of course how to make money selling REBOL scripts. > > It's just my opinion but I think it is easier to make money from customers / >business enterprises & other organisations by incorporating REBOL as a technology >which you use to provide a SOLUTION or SERVICE offering rather than as "shrink >wrapped in a box" software product. I think RT Inc. make this mistake when they try >to get people to buy / license their non-free interpreters like /View/Pro & /Command >etc. > Paul Graham at http://www.paulgraham.com talks about how his company used LISP, with >it's benefits in terms of lower development costs and the quicker development / >testing / debugging cycle to produce high quality internet capable software as part >of a SERVICE / SOLUTION offering for online shopping stores. > > He found his market niche it is up to us / those who would wish to be able to make a >living using & developing in REBOL to find ours. > > I certainly don't think anybody outside RT Inc. is going to be able to sell a REBOL >"boxed" software application except perhaps in certain specialist areas, definitely >not across the current spectrum of typical user applications there's just to much >other competition ranging from Microsoft to all the free software at places like >freshmeat & tucows etc. > > The best way for us advance the possibility to be able to earn a crust from REBOL is >by stressing it's benefits and getting it used inside enterprises and large and small >organisations so that there becomes a viable "job market" for REBOL programmers like >there currently is for JAVA & PERL. > > One way to achieve this would be for REBOL Technologies Inc to remove some of the >current restrictions on the "commercial" use of REBOL Interpreters, we would then be >free to promote it's usage into our work places and enterprises. > > Also more practical examples of the cross platform nature of REBOL and it's ability >to interface and manipulate LEGACY data as well as all the new whizz-bang XML / SOAP >/ WEB data AND stressing REBOL's ability to do all this across the network / internet >would do no harm at all. > > We need to encourage and develop more "success" stories of the practical >applications of REBOL in the real world of IT rather than fantasising about how great >it's all going to be in the REBOL/IOS & MS.NET X-INTERNET world of tomorrow. This >rosy future is where we all work and play via the web & internet is great / crap >depending on your viewpoint but it doesn't address the practical realities of today. > > For REBOL to work we need to put it to practical use and publicise this loudly and >show the world how easy using REBOL can be and the benefits to bederived from this. >More XML / TEXT / DATA / NUMERIC processing examples, more WEB-Agents & Email ROBOT's >& SPIDERS, more use of REBOL in science & schools & education and the not forgetting >the lesser developed economies in the world, not everybody can afford to pay western >prices for their computer upgrades and software. > > We need more than just some pretty picture examples of REBOL/View. > PRACTICAL Real life examples and applications of REBOL as a technology to provide >lower cost or technically superior solutions to problems is what will SELL REBOL as a >useful technology to the outside world. > > To become the "better means of expression" and "Universal Internet Messaging >Language" we need to use and promote REBOL more and RT can help us by restricting >REBOL less. So what if The Bank of America want to install REBOL on a hundred >thousand desktops & servers, let them go ahead and do it for "FREE". > Somebody has got to maintain & development software for them and most organisations >are willing to pay people for that. That creates a market and a demand for REBOL as a >technology and people with REBOL skills. > > Trying to write some code and sell it only pitches you into the market with every >other commercial software developer out there and with all the same competition and >pitfalls of trying to compete against established industry giants who can kill you or >your financial revenues if they have to, to protect their position. Just think >Netscape and browsers. The lucky ones get bought out. > > Programming is a skill which people will pay you for to either develop or maintain >software for them. > Programming languages can be used to create programs and services which are of >"UTILITY" to people and should help provide solutions for their needs. > > Programs and programming languages are NOT an end in themselves except in an >intellectual way for developers / academics / hobbyists, they are only one tool in >part of a greater toolset that people need and use to get REAL work or activites >achieved in their REAL lives. > > Trying to sell or license software solely as a product is problematic, and the >smaller the developer the greater and harder the challenges are and that's why, > to get back to my original point, it's probably best that once you release it you >accept it's in the public domain and treat it as such. > > Trying to promote your software toolkit and services as part of a bigger or overall >more comprehensive solutions package is an easier way of trying to make a living than >betting on the revenues from software products or "reblets". Micropayments and a >futurist fantasy for just now anyway. > > Sorry for my long ramblings. > > Mark Dickson > > In a message dated Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:13:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Gregg Irwin" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hi Gabriele, > > > > << What kind of license should I release it on? >> > > > > I've been thinking about the same thing, even for little tools and scripts. > > There are a number of licenses listed at opensource.org. I think the "free > > for non-commercial use" and charging for commercial use is a good approach. > > > > --Gregg > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > > subject, without the quotes. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. -- Note: When sending me email directly, always make sure to include my name in the message, otherwise my aggressive spam filters may trash it. Ryan Cole * www.iesco-dms.com * 707-468-5400 -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
