"Introducing New LiveCode Licenses"
richmondmathewson at gmail.com
Tue Oct 29 09:11:09 CET 2013
On 29/10/13 08:50, Curry Kenworthy wrote:
>> All this said, I do think RunRev have probably got their pricing
>> strategy wrong. The cross-platform tools with large growing user
>> bases and decent profits (there aren't many of them) all have some
>> kind of limited free commercial license - often both feature limited
>> and with a revenue cap on the person/organisation. They also have
>> more expensive full licenses than RunRev. Trying to cover everyone
>> with a single license fee is almost definitely sub-optimal.
> I disagree with this path. My virtual vote is against a free
> commercial license. As you say, then the full license is more
> expensive - sometimes astronomical. (Socialism at work.)
> People can learn and get started or do non profit projects free with
> open source. I say keep it paid when they go commercial and need
> closed source. RunRev chose the OSS route, so having taken that route,
> now this should be the only free version.
> But I agree that a segment may be lacking - hobbyists and so on.
> People who need closed source but are short on cash, and don't need
> all the platforms. A smaller commercial package for one or two
> platforms could fill this need.
> I love the current buffet price for all the basic, popular platforms.
> I hope that stays.
> Besides the effort to monetize support options, perhaps the commercial
> version could also diverge a bit from the open source version
> eventually to offer some extra power in another higher commercial
> Best wishes,
> Curry K.
A free commercial licence seems a contradiction in terms.
What might fill the gap would be a rental system where one can have a
licence for commercial that expires after a stipulated period: how about
a $50 a day plan?
More information about the use-livecode