Business Application Framework
prothero at earthednet.org
Wed Aug 12 17:24:26 CEST 2015
I would also find it very disappointing, after locking in 3 years of Indy license, to find that addon licenses were required to access some set of wonderful new livecode features. That said, I'm a single developer, so git isn't important to me. Also, if the purpose of the Indy license was to support single developers, working alone, would git be particularly attractive? Just asking.
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Peter Haworth <pete at lcsql.com> wrote:
> 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:
> 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