So, are we GD users screwed now or what?!?

[fzammetti]

To anyone currently developing or considering developing a GapiDraw-based application, I suggest you read this VERY carefully... I am hoping I am wrong in a number of points and I will be able to post an update later stating that, but I have an extremely bad feeling in the pit of my stomach right now... For reference, check out:



This is an eMail I just fired off to Shahab Ghavami, the Technology Licensing Inquiries contact person at Viktoria Institute...


Hello. I had sent you a previous inquiry, but it was not answered. With the release of GapiDraw 2.05 and the new licensing scheme, I now have some specific questions which I very much hope will be promptly answered...

At this point I am interested in using the free version in my currently developing game project. I was already given permission to use 2.04, but with the blt bug, that is obviously no longer a good option.

Before I ask my questions about licensing, let me ask this: it seems very unfair if you do not release a bug-fix 2.04 for people like me that have projects developing with that. If this is not done, we are being forced to use 2.05, which could be forcing us to pay (see my questions below). So, do you have plans of releasing a 2.04 version which just addresses the blt bug?

Now, on to the licensing questions...

On your licensing discussion page of your web site, you state: "Note that a free version of GapiDraw will always be available for test and evaluation purposes". This can be interpreted to mean that I may NOT release a commercial product based on the free version. In fact, it's less a matter of interpretation than asking if that is actually the intent of the statement. Is this in fact the case, or can I in fact release a commercial product based on the free version without having to pay anything?

Next, you go on to state: "Based on its annual revenue, the company pays annually a licensing fee of X% of that revenue in the first two years". What is the X in that equation? How is it calculated? Is it simply me as a developer saying "I'm going to pay you 1% of my revenue for a given product a year, for two years"?

You also state "Based on company’s own 2-year revenue estimations, the company calculates the licensing fee and pays it (in a single payment) before distributing the application.". This could answer my previous question in that it seems you are in fact saying it will be up to the developer. If that is the case, what steps will you be taking to verify the estimates? It seems to me that I could estimate my game bringing in $100 over a two-year period and then me saying I will pay you 1%, so here's your check for $10.

I find your licensing terms extremely confusing and very open to interpretation, so I hope you can clarify these points for me (at which point I may very well have others).

Actually, I didn't immediately read the portion where you state: "As long as GapiDraw is used in non-commercial R&D projects the permission is granted to use it free of charge. As soon as the user institute decides to commercialize the application powered by GapiDraw it shall inform and agree with VI on a licensing model which suites the nature of the planned business."

So in fact, my first question is answered: I CANNOT release a commercial product based on the free version. Is that correct?

If so, I must tell you that I am more than a little upset about this turn of events. IF you intend to release a bug fixed 2.04, than I really have no complaint and you can ignore this eMail. If that is not being done however, I have to tell you that this amounts to something bordering on extortion. I am certain I am not the only one with a developing project under 2.04 that I was expecting to not have to pay licensing fees for. But now, if no bug-fix version is forthcoming, than in fact I am in effect being FORCED to pay, when all along during the development cycle I was told I did not have to pay, based on the licensing for 2.04 and the fact that I already have permission to go ahead with that version. This is more than a little shady, and I very much hope you can clarify this for me and it turns out I am wrong.

Please also be aware that I am going to post this message to the PocketMatrix GapiDraw forums for all to see. I suspect I will not be the only one with questions, and this may help others.

I very anxiously await your response...

Frank W. Zammetti
Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
www.omnytex.com

[Darren]

hello,

I have a few more concerns. For older versions of GapiDraw say 1.04, 2.01, 2.02 - i have been working on commercial programs using these, which do not require the added functionality in the newer releases. Do I continue under the old licence agreement when I started a few months ago? Or am I now forced to use 2.05? Basically i dont need 2.05 at the moment..anybody else in this predicament?


darren

[fzammetti]

[Centaur]

[fzammetti]

That's a good point, your interpretation makes sense. I frankly hope you are right and I am wrong. However, this part seems in direct contadiction to that interpretation:

"As long as GapiDraw is used in non-commercial R&D projects the permission is granted to use it free of charge. As soon as the user institute decides to commercialize the application powered by GapiDraw it shall inform and agree with VI on a licensing model which suites the nature of the planned business."

How are they defining "user institute"? If you can insert the term "single developer" in it's place, then yes, I think you got it right and there's no problem (for me either since I'm the only employee of my company, which isn't even a legal corporate entity anyway). Yes, this text is found under the "educational institution" heading, but it sure sounds like it applies to anyone.

It's also at odds with the statement previously that we would no longer have to inform Viktoria of our use of GD, as long as it's the free version. Sure, if the free version cannot be used commercially this is technically true, but the intent of the previous statement directly contridicts this license text, at the least.

I think the bottom line here is that these license terms, as written, leave a great deal to interpretation and at the very least they need to be clarified quite a bit.

Worst-case though is that this is a deliberate attempt to force people to pay. I hate to say it, but it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that this was the plan all along... Release a version (2.04) with a major bug that makes it essentially useless, don't release a bug-fix for it but instead release a new version with a license scheme that makes it impossible to release a commercial app under without paying something. I don't want to use the term bait and switch, but unless I'm shown to be wrong in my interpretations, it can be argued that's exactly what it is.

Now, again I'll say that I'm hoping I'm wrong on all this and that it will be explained and all will be right with the world. I'm trying not to jump to conclusions here, but the longer it goes without an official response from Shahab, or at the least Johan, the angrier I get.

I can't speak for anyone but myself (even though I suspect a fair number of people will have and hopefully voice similar thoughts), but I can tell you that my time tonight will be spent seeing how difficult it will be to change back to PocketFrog, just in case I'm right about all this. That's a lot of work I don't want to do, and GapiDraw is a great product, but depending on the answers to my questions, that might be the only option still available to me.

[Centaur]

[fzammetti]

[Joe]

[bluescrn]

[fzammetti]

[Kzinti]

[fzammetti]

[Kzinti]

[fzammetti]

[bluescrn]

[duplicate post removed]