Revenue and the Open Source edition

[RM]

I hope not as it is a fantastic thing (despite some slightly off-colour 
remarks I may have made in the past), but that is not
my concern. What is my concern is that I feel that very few start-ups, 
small-time software people ("one-hit wonders") an hobbyists
who wish to code-protect their source code are going to feel comfy about 
stumping up $999 for that.

If one wants to play "rentals" then why not have a rental arrangement 
whereby a programmer can rent a Commercial version to
protect their code and hive off standalones on a very short-term basis 
(12 hours?) for a reasonable rate ($50?), and then, should their
offering succeed they can buy into something more permanent.

With the exception of the PDF reader (as you pointed out) for 
development purposes there is no real difference between Livecode versions
(and I am aware that you are pushing for further differentiation, and I 
understand your rationale), so paying $999 for a year for something whose
single difference fron the FREE version is the ability to protect ones' 
code really does not seem justifiable.

Richmond.

On 2.05.2016 18:06, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> On 02/05/2016 14:31, RM wrote:
>
>> 2. The enormous differential between the FREE version and the Commercial
>> version: this seems almost an unbridgeable
>> gap.
>
> Do you think that people underestimate the value that they get from 
> the Open Source edition of LiveCode because they get it at no cost?
>
>                                      Peter
>