I very much doubt the subscription model will go away any time soon. It may be constructive to determine a price point that hobby developers requiring proprietary distribution might be prepared to pay but I think the issue you will bump into is that's a small market so the price point would need to be high to justify the work involved in having the extra license. In the end you are either making or intending to make money with the platform so $1-2k isn't a deal breaker or you aren't making money so GPL isn't a deal breaker. The middle ground is therefore small and from a cost-benefit perspective may be best squeezed one way of the other.
Sent from my iPhone > On 1 May 2016, at 5:41 PM, RM <richmondmathew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please do not mention my roof: I was up there after a few really violent > April showers messing around with a blow torch > on the tar-paper - and I'm scared of heights. > > Nobody is going to spin me the vast amount required to RENT Livecode > Commercial. > > AND I really DON'T want to RENT anything: I want to buy a commercial version > that will stand me in as good stead as LC 4.5 IS still doing. > > So, let's turn this from a discussion about Richmond's roof to one about > how the Livecode folk imagine they are going to get the "Hobby brigade" and > the "Poor boys" > to buy/rent any type of Livecode other than the Free version at the current > prices they are > asking . . . . > > Let's also have a "chew" about rental versus ownership. > > There have been some rumblings, but I don't think this has ever been really > addressed fully. > > I wonder if by doing 2 things almost at the same time: > > 1. Producing an Open Source, Free version. > > 2. Hiking the price of the commercial version sky-high. > > Livecode won't end up doing something which they probably did not intend. > > I thought (and, hey, I've been wrong many times) that they general idea > was that developers who might want to protect code developed using the Free > version > might be prepared to buy/rent the protected version. > > However, a very large number of developers may not be pulling in the money at > a sufficient rate for the > to feel comfortable to shell out the high price of a commercial version. > > This argument begins to resemble the one I banged on about for ages in the > DreamCard days . . . > > Richmond. > >> On 1.05.2016 06:09, Kay C Lan wrote: >> As Richard and Paul have said plus, you've got more to worry about than >> just converting numToChar to numToCodePoint as per your other post. >> >> Just minutes ago I received a quote of the day email from my uncle that >> said: >> >> Fix the roof whilst the sun is shining. >> >> So to rephrase Richard and Paul: 4.5's sunny days are well and truly over, >> the storm clouds are brewing, the barometric pressure continues to fall and >> it's already started drizzling! It's your choice as to when you fix the >> roof. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
