Mark Schonewille wrote:
You're saying that RunRev doesn't care about 95% of the market.
I find that hard to believe...
Then we're on the same page because that's not what I wrote.
What I wrote is here:
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2014-September/205913.html>
...but if it is true, why isn't there a free license for iOS?
Of all the people using all of the many computing devices across the
seven platforms LiveCode currently supports, how is the subset of mobile
developers deploying non-commercial apps to iOS "95% of the market"?
Just make it closed-source but free instead of $99, if it can't be
open-source.
That would be nice. It would also be nice if all versions of LiveCode
for all platforms were free. It would be extra nice if a multi-platform
VM like LiveCode weren't expensive to produce.
Presumptions of someone else's intentions can be tricky. I'll let Kevin
speak for himself, but if one presumes RunRev truly "doesn't care" about
this "95% of the market" then it would seem reasonable that there would
be no steeply-discounted offering for that platform at all.
You don't seem to recognise that Indy developers are forced to buy a
license every year.
It might seem that way to anyone new to this thread who didn't read my
post, where I made explicit reference to the new subscription model at
least twice, even going so far as acknowledge that "it "may seem
off-putting".
I'd want to buy a license for 250 euro and continue to use it
until I think that LiveCode has sufficiently improved to justify
a new license.
That's a subjective decision likely to differ for each developer. It
seems safe to suggest that many if not most professional developers
maintain current engine versions to take advantage of new features and
bug fixes.
FWIW, if we check the bug database for only those issues reported where
the status has been changed to "Fixed" over the last year, we find 1,335
bug fixes and enhancements during what would be a single license period:
<http://quality.runrev.com/buglist.cgi?chfield=resolution&chfieldfrom=2013-09-18&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=fixed&email1=ambassador&emailtype1=substring&list_id=30111&query_format=advanced&resolution=FIXED&token=1411060356-2ebe26463177b15d245a99263d2da256&order=bug_id%20DESC&limit=0>
A hobbyist who wants others to benefit from his work for free but
doesn't want to give away his code, is forced to buy a license every
year --or to not give away his software, but who makes software without
wanting to share it?
Apparently some 95% of programming is done for internal use within an
organization, according to Eric Raymond as cited in the article I linked
to:
<http://readwrite.com/2014/08/15/open-source-software-business-zulily-erp-wall-street-journal>
Even if it's as low as 75%, your point is well made: there are many who
make software for others to use who may not be interested in running a
profitable business from it.
Given the cost of licensing LiveCode or the cost of using
C++/Python/Java/NameYourTool, a more interesting question would seem:
Why is a proprietary license important to the developer when there's no
material value in choosing it?
I'll be away to a LiveCode meeting, so I won't have time to read your
reply, if any. I'll ask the people at the meeting what they think of
this.
Have a great time at the meeting. Your last meeting seemed to go well,
and I trust this one will be even better.
If anyone there finds this discussion relevant to their interests it
would be useful to hear their answer to my last question here, about the
value of proprietary licenses for non-commercial projects.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
