Richmond, rudeness and commercial enterprise

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, Mathewson wrote:

> 1.  If RR is a commercial enterprise then it might like to
> consider rewarding developer contribs: the idea of FREE or
> not FREE can work in both directions.

They could indeed consider this but are the obligated to do so?  What if
they choose not to?


> There has certainly been the impression of a 'community' -
> now one of the shortcomings of RR is the lack of an
> adequate manual that will serve the needs of new
> programmers - the use-lists, to a certain extent, serve
> that purpose.  However
> if users are writing the manual (so to speak) should they
> not have some benefit from it?

Your choice of the term "inadequate" is subjective -- extensive
documentation is included in the package.  Users are not writing the manual,
they are expounding on it, to provide additional help and insights for other
users, a labor which one might call "community".


> The concept of a community where people give freely of
> their time and effort to contribute to building something
> (in this case a knowledge base) seems directly the opposite
> of a
> commercial enterprise.  I understood that the Runtime
> Revolution team were doing something admirable; an attempt
> to combine both concepts in what we might like to term "a
> third way" or "enlightened commercialism".

You appear to be saying that commercial enterprise and community cannot
coexist.  You might have a hard time justifying this point of view with the
online forums provided by every major software product in the world.


> However, the removal of the 'free' version of RR does away
> with this image and leave us with raw commercialism.  So
> henceforward words like "RR developer community" will sound
> a bit hollow.

I think many folks would argue that they would rather have a "hollow"
community than no community at all.


> I have been repeatedly encouraged in my comments to the
> use-list and contributions both to the developer contribs
> page and on my own small website by both RR staff members
> and by other use-list members; and that made me feel part
> of a 'community' in which at least some of my stuff was
> valued.

Until now, none of this had changed.


> I have always made it explicit that I could not afford a
> license (I do not develop software for anybody at the
> moment) this did not stop anybody encouraging me.

Are you suggesting you are owed something because you cannot afford a
license?  Is anything preventing you from using what you currently have to
make contributions?


> The reason why I feel f***ed off is because I will no
> longer be able to contribute very successfully to the
> use-list or the developer contribs page being unable to
> have proper access to future RR builds.

Again, you can continue to use what you have to create whatever
contributions you wish. If you feel you are owed "proper access" to future
RR builds, I would suggest taking this up with the RunRev folks privately,
the folks who enact the policies, instead of hurling your accusations at
listmembers who are not part of your situation.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director

Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design
Email: scott at tactilemedia.com
Web: www.tactilemedia.com