Interim language guide solution

[Robert Brenstein]

We seem to be at different frequencies, Richard.

>  >
>>  Yes, but the latter is not quite correct. We may be expected to get a
>>  Rev license after July 2004 but we are not required, and some people
>>  may choose to continue without a valid license.
>
>Even if you use the MC IDE, why pass up new engine features?  You can get
>both formats of the license key if you wish; at the moment the Rev key is
>sent by default, with the MC key sent on request.

Sure, but each license renewal costs money, doesn't it? Not everyone 
can afford to spend it every year, particularly if new features are 
not compelling enough. My point was that we can't assume that each 
user will automatically renew and have active license at all times.

>  > Being able to modify for your own usage is one thing, but MC IDE is a
>>  parallel environment, to some degree "competing" with Rev IDE. WHat I
>>  mean is that MC IDE development is not exactly governed by normal
>>  end-user license as far as I see.
>
>It can't "compete" by definition: the money you pay to for the engine goes
>to one company, no matter which IDE you use, even one you built yourself.
>On the extremely odd chance that the MC IDE had 90% of the Transcript
>audience (instead of the opposite which is the case today) I'm sure Rev
>would welcome sales of their product driven by an IDE it neither has to
>support or maintain. ;)

It "competes" not in money terms (this is why I put it in 
parenthesis) but as an alternative interface. The money may go into a 
single pocket, but the development/maintenance is done by different 
"company" (this open source group pro bono), so there is a legal 
dichotomy. And the point was that while end-user license applies to 
many things we deal with, MC IDE as a product is a bit different 
beast and one should automatically assume some things.

Robert