I got an email from Kevin about it yesterday. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 7:52 AM Brahmanathaswami, Sannyasin <bra...@hindu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Andrew Kluthe <and...@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 > guns, Node, Ruby, Javascript, PHP... you can just open a GIT account and go > 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@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
