[Ardour-Dev] Licensing and enforced payments
Quentin Harley
qharley at wbs.co.za
Mon Jan 19 21:39:04 PST 2009
Thomas Vecchione wrote:
> To be honest, we have already beaten this to death in the original
> thread, so I won't rehash the debate here, other than to say I am
> personally against both of those.
I also have to vote against (if my vote is worth anything)
If ardour 3.0 is going to "crippled" in any way, I would be happy to
stay with 2.x until the cripple ardour idea failed and became uncrippled
again ;-)
Cheers,
Q
>
> Seablade
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Patrick Shirkey
> <pshirkey at boosthardware.com <mailto:pshirkey at boosthardware.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As the original thread is attempting to be a location for ideas to
> be posted and discussion is suggested to take place on a separate
> thread lets start up this discussion here:
>
> 8: Paid for SVN
> 9: Paid License to: disable crippled interface, Get access to more
> features, Disable RSS ticker
>
> +++++++++
> Negatives:
>
> Many Linux people feel very strongly that any of the above is
> tantamount to signing your name in the blood of your fist born
> with the Devil.
>
> Positives:
>
> People who would otherwise completely neglect to contribute to
> Ardour (free loaders) will be more likely to pay money if they are
> forced to.
>
> +++++++++
>
> - Paul has already declared on numerous occasions over the past 12
> years or so of development that Ardour is GPL and will always be
> GPL. We have no reason to believe he would change that.
>
> - A fork of Ardour wouldn't go very far without the main man Paul
> so if anyone wanted to fork Ardour and maintain any updates just
> because a couple of paid for addons that could be disabled at
> compile time or with a simple config setting were added they would
> really be making extra work for themselves.
>
> IMO, paying for SVN access is a last resort if all the other
> options fail.
>
> IMO, some kind of paid license to disable or enable a certain
> feature to get people who would otherwise not contribute to Ardour
> is a reasonable option.
>
> - Some will call it cripple ware and some will call it "added
> value professional functionality".
> - Some people want to pay for additional features. Giving them the
> option is simply another way to get them to give some cash.
> - Many people will not contribute unless they are specifically
> told to.
> - Many people think that unless they are asked to pay for
> something it has no real value.
> - Many people think that the owner or creator doesn't value the
> product if they don't specifically ask for money before handing
> over the goods. If they receive a product tin full without being
> asked to pay for it that in turn makes people feel they shouldn't
> value the product either.
> - If we add a License fee for people who want to pay a license fee
> then we are making those people feel valued.
> - Many of the future users of Ardour (as in the net book hordes
> who are about to descend) will expect to have some kind of license
> fee. If we don't give them a way to give money then we are missing
> out on a huge market.
> - Why do we spend so much effort on making the best software that
> we can but are unwilling to use our skills to get people to pay us
> for the effort by maximizing the options for people to part with
> their cash?
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Shirkey
> Boost Hardware Ltd.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org <mailto:ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org>
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
>
More information about the Ardour-Dev
mailing list