Rev licensing

[Alain Farmer]

Hello Shari, Kevin and y'all

> I know folks have been discussing something
> about players, but it sounded more like an
> issue for those who wanted to create a 
> competing program to Rev.

>From a business point of view: "sounded like" is not
sufficient. As an entrepreneur, I must know *exactly*
what the terms of the licence are BEFORE considering
whether it is wise to switch-over or not. Moreover, I
would like to be reasonably-sure that the terms won't
change [much] in the next versions/upgrades so that I
am NOT subsequently forced into licencing terms that I
cannot subscribe to.

> In other words, I did not connect this
> to what I create, which are programs
> that have a standalone, and usually
> several separate stacks that go with
> it. Is there something that would
> affect my standalones in some way?

This is precisely the question that I'm asking. Which
licence(s), if any, allow us to create standalones?
Are we allowed to bundle one|more stack(s) with it?
(which of course remain editable). Can we continue to
bundle a player of our stacks in the form of a custom
splash screen? Keeping the whole set of stacks in an
editable form is definitely the best practice here. A
separate application to download and install, which is
bloated because it has EVERYTHING in it, and splashes
a Runtime advertisement on startup, is NOT a desirable
alternative to a custom solution with a custom splash
screen. Naturally, we are trying to 'hide' the xCard
origins of our custom solutions when releasing wares.
Solutions crafted with C++, for example, don't advert
the tools that they were edited and compiled with! It
is not appropriate for us either. More grievous still
would be to obligate our customer to download, install
& run a separate app to use our stack-based solutions;
an application which Runtime self-avowedly admits that
it wasn't up to expectations AND, irregarless of this,
it is a proprietary app that we have *no* control over
(the *licencing* as well as the code, I might add).

Sorry for giving you such a hard time about this,
Kevin, but I am evidently not the only one who is
concerned about the licencing terms for Rev [2.7+].

Please inform us unambiguously as to the terms of your
licences so that we may make an informed decision
about porting to Rev [2.7+] or not.

Prospective Runtime customers need to know what's-what
and what to expect in the future. Apparently, some of
your existing customers are un-clear about this, too;
but I cannot speak 'for' them because I am NOT one of
them yet. But I *could* be, if ...  ;-)

Alain

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com