--> Why not open source XMLmind XML Editor? [1] We, XMLmind, don't know how to make money with Open Source software. [2] We, XMLmind, don't know how to manage Open Source software (e.g. contributions, access to CVS, etc).
--> Why replace Standard Edition by Personal Edition? We feel that a substantial number of Standard Edition users are using XMLmind XML Editor *very*, *very*, professionally, that is, - they heavily depend on it for their work, - they do very complicated things with it, - they do not hesitate to *flood* xmleditor-support at xmlmind.com with hard-to-answer questions and hard-to-reject RFEs. These users were welcome to do so because Standard Edition allowed this behavior. In fact, we *liked* very much everything about this kind of demanding users, except the fact that they didn't buy even a single $220 license from us. But these advanced Standard Edition users cost us too much time and effort and therefore, this has to stop. That's why we have decided to replace Standard Edition by Personal Edition. --> But many people will simply stop using XMLmind XML Editor, people will stop recommending XMLmind XML Editor, your sales will drop, you'll go out of business, you are doomed, etc. What about that? If this has to happen, well, let it happen and let it happen *fast*. We are very small company, very agile. We'll develop another product (or we'll take the time to learn how to make money with Open Source ;-) ) Robert Ganowski wrote: > > Please let me envisage that I'm pretty much disappointed. Am I alone?. You > are > giving rights and you are taking those rights away and that's the point I'm > disappointed the most. It is of course your product and your rights to do > whatever you want, but I'd rather believed you'll, one day, go in absolutely > other direction. I don't know why but I believed you'll go fully open source, > as many other great products. > > You have a great: useful and beautiful XML editor (for me it is a DocBook > editor), and it is probably worth the money you want to sale it for. Product > is worth as much as people want to pay. And... I'm also not a man who cannot > afford it. But... it's really strange filling, to have some possibilities, > and to loose them. You were answering many questions in a very rapid manner. > I was always impressed. You had time to answer all those stupid questions and > that was really amazing. Now you write: download 3.5.2 because it is last > version of those, you can use not only for strictly personal use, and if you > don't buy next one I wont answer your inquiries. > > I'm not angry. It is not the thing. I'm really pretty much disappointed. In > any document I prepared, I included a note, that it was written in XMLmind > XML Editor Standard Edition according to DocBook XML schema. Did you ever see > any document written for example in MS Word in which someone put such a > message: ?It was prepared in Microsoft Word?? I was really proud to use your > product, but now it's getting to be just a tool. Of course a good, a great, > tool, but only a tool... > > Thank you very much for all the things you've done up to now. > Best regards, > Robert > > Dnia poniedzia?ek, 26 marca 2007 12:47, Hussein Shafie napisa?: >>As of v3.6 (should be released in the next few weeks), XMLmind XML >>Editor Personal Edition will replace Standard Edition. >> >>Personal Edition will be free of charge, will be functionally identical >>to Standard Edition, but will come with a license which restricts its >>use to personal use. >> >>More information in http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/std_to_perso.html Denis Bradford wrote: > Why shouldn't Hussein and pixware make a living making their great software, > especially from other businesses who presumably also charge their customers? > (Don't forget, there is still the free Personal Edition.) In my opinion, > for-profit companies and open-source can have a healthy symbiotic > relationship, and this is a very good example. Michael Kaye's Saxon is > another, similar example. Where would we be without them? > > Open standards (XML, XSL, etc.) and dialects (DocBook, DITA, etc.) absolutely > rule in the publishing world, but so far I haven't seen any open source XML > editors as good as the best commercial ones (which include XML Mind). So XML > Mind is not and never has been open source, but it supports and extends open > standards and tools. In my opinion that's how commercial tools should work. > So I think $220 is a bargain. Andrew Savikas wrote: > I was disheartened to learn that you've chosen to continue making the free > version of your product even less useful to end users. > (http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/std_to_perso.html). > > I've posted an open letter in response to your decision on XML.com, at: > http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/03/an_open_letter_to_xml_mind_on.htm > l Keith Fahlgren wrote: > That mirrors our response here at O'Reilly: > > http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/03/an_open_letter_to_xml_mind_on.html
