Infinite LiveCode - Message from CEO

[RM]

On 14.05.2016 00:17, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 5/13/2016 2:02 PM, Paul Dupuis wrote:
>> My first gut reaction was "So, I and the other 24% minority of people
>> paying for licenses are funding an awesome development tool that some
>> 76% of you folks out there are using for free. 

What follows does not consist of gut reactions.

>> People who only use
>> Community and grip should be sending the 24% of us who pay thank you 
>> cards!"
>
> I had the same reaction. It is, to my mind, the height of chutzpah to 
> complain about things one receives for free.

"Free" is a bit of a slithery word as it seems to mean quite a few 
different things.

I stumped up my "widow's mite" for the Kickstarter; had I had more funds 
I would have stumped up more.

So, whether I am receiving things for "Free" is a bit of a moot point 
[admittedly one that is a waste of time discussing].

I wish people would stop banging on about the word "Free" just because 
it is such a vague word.

AND, as to "complaining"; I often wonder where one draws the lines 
between "complaints", positive criticism and negative criticism.

The problem there is either "all in the mind" or "all in the mouth".

Paul Dupois wrote:

> However, that gut reaction in no way takes into account the "gift in
> kind" contributions of people using only the Community license in
> (a) contributions to the source code
> (b) time spend on submitting quality bug reports
> (c) time spend on helping others with useful advice on the forums
> or email lists, and
> (d) many, many, other similar contributions of time.

I know many people who do at least three of these four items. ALL of
them, inclusive me, have at least an Indy license and are backing each
and every campaign.

Of course he is wrong in stating that ALL of them have at least an Indy 
licence.

I'm "guilty" of (b), (c) and a very small bit of (d) and the only 
licences I "own" (whatever that means in this context)
are a licence to DreamCard 2.6, one to Livecode Studio 4.0 and Livecode 
Enterprise 4.5 (and the last one was, very
generously given to me by Livecode).

I don't believe I'm the only one who owns no "contemporary" licences who 
submits bug reports, or helps people with
advice of varying levels of helpfulness on the forums or email lists.

That does NOT mean I feel I am entitled to either an Indy or a 
Full-Monty licence, as I am well aware that
Livecode DO need the money people pay for those licences.

> It is a delusion to think that a contribution to a kickstarter 3 years 
> ago is still funding current development.

I am not so daft as to think that money most of us stumped up for the 
Kickstarter is funding current development; and I very much doubt
if anybody else is that daft either.

The problem lies in this:

When people were offered the chance to stump up money for the 
Kickstarter they were presented a whole list of things (followed by a list
of "stretch goals") which they were assured would be financed by the 
Kickstarter, but have not been completed yet.

Now it might be that many of us who stumped up money for the Kickstarter 
are/were naive in believing that those things would be financed by the 
Kickstarter,

it might be that Livecode/RunRev were naive in thinking that those 
things would be financed by the Kickstarter.

There is, however, a difference between the consequences of the funders' 
naivety and Livecode/RunRev's naivety: in the latter case
there should be some sort of apology, instead we are faced with further 
requests/demands for money.

Now if one promises goods and/or services for money and does not deliver 
it might be a bit naive (oops, there's that word again) to expect those
people who stumped up money for things that were then not delivered as 
promised to stump up further funds.

>
> The team needs a steady source of income to continue development into 
> the future. 

I wouldn't doubt it for a moment.

But as it has undertaken to deliver XXXX for YYYY and hasn't, it may 
have to consider raising funds in a completely different way than going 
back,
cap-in-hand, to the initial funders.

> If only 1/4 of the user base is paying for that then development will 
> slow or founder. I am amazed and grateful for the work the team has 
> done on such slim resources provided by only a fraction of the user base. 

It may be instructive to have a look at how companies such as Canonical 
(the company behind Ubuntu) finances itself: there maybe the odd
donation here and there, but their main sources of income are from other 
places and means.

> They should be receiving accolades.
>

Indeed, I believe they would be receiving far more accolades if they 
were not releasing things they termed "Stable" which still contained
quite important bugs.

Livecode/RunRev should stop feeling pressure (if they do) to release GM 
versions. I really don't see what would have been wrong with
Livecode 8.0 going through 50 developer previews if that is what it took 
to get a really smashing release that attracted little or no 'moans'
at all.

I don't know who should receive thankyou cards, but J. Landman Gay 
should because what she
writes is always (gut reaction or not) coherent and well put, even if I 
disagree with it.

Richmond.