Business Application Framework
pete at lcsql.com
Wed Aug 12 11:02:38 EDT 2015
I got an email from Kevin about it yesterday.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 7:52 AM Brahmanathaswami, Sannyasin <brahma at hindu.org>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Kluthe <andrew at ctech.me> wrote:
> > I think git support without
> > having to fiddle around too much would be pretty important to an open
> > source community.
> Where did this announcement appear? I haven't seen it in my email and it's
> not in my spam.
> I have to agree. I have paid (and paid and paid) RunRev from the very day
> (even before Kevin went "live" with the new company and was still
> transitioning from Scott's admin) for every offer to help with their cash
> flow into the future by buying into what is now an "indy" license for X
> number of years into the future. (I think I am up to 2021 now.) putting a
> lot of faith in this company, and convincing stakeholders, who hold the
> purse strings, that we can trust and depend on Kevin and his team going
> into the future...
> and now, to be told that to have a collaborative environment... we have to
> pay again.. this is
> a) very disappointing
> b) IMHO very bad strategy: while I appreciate and respect HQ's need for a
> revenue stream (as witnessed by my commitment to ever single long term
> offer the company ever made, including open source.) I don't think this a
> good strategy for the future of the product/language. All the other big
> to work... but here we sit working on a stack pondering how we can share
> this with a colleague... I was just thinking about this the other day and
> wondering if we need resurrect "Magic Carpet" and us some kind or RCS for
> stack development collaboration. It would work, but still rather primitive
> in terms of being able to fork, regression options etc. Kevin stated on
> video in Southern California that he wanted LiveCode to be one of the 10
> most popular used languages in the field. Locking collaboration behind a
> paywall is certainly going to kill that goal for sure.
> I suggest a different model for an additional revenue stream, one that is
> used by a fellow UK engineering team (Chris Graham) that runs the very
> successful OC Portal php CMS: Sell credit hours for support. e.g. you
> charge $25.00 per hour for support. I buy 10 hours.. pay LC $250.00. Check
> out OC Portal support model... best we have ever seen for a software
> product. If I need help HQ helps me until my hours run out. In Chris's case
> (high integrity factor there) if it is a bug in the software, he will not
> dock your credit hours. If your request is a "feature" request.. and it
> take him 20 hours to get it done... he does not bill you for the extra
> ten... why? Because he figures that the dialogue with his client about the
> new feature was a win-win since now OC Portal has a cool new widget/feature
> that enhances the product for everyone else and future prospects. His paid
> support clients are helping him build and build and build the product.
> Where is the announcement?
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode