New Licensing Model

[ppcStudios]

[Edited to support Frank's suggestion on Hobbiest vs. Educational terminology]

So, to flesh out an imaginary licensing system even more using Frank's suggestions:

Hobbiest- no commercial sales unlimited platforms - free license with banner
Hobbiest - shareware/commercial sales one platform - $100 per title or 3% of sales, with banner
Developer - shareware/commercial sales one platform - $200 per title or 5% or sales, with no banner
Professional - shareware/commercial sales unlimited platforms - $1000 or 10% of sales, unlimited usage

Professional level would receive the highest level of product support, with priority on bug fixes and product enhancements. The support would then filter down to Developer, Hobbiest then finally Educational level licencees.

Certainly, the fees and support levels could change as this is simply an example of a working licensing scheme that might make the GapiDraw community comfortable about basing their continued development on the product.

[fzammetti]

The only change I would make to that, ppcStudios, is the first tier I would keep the "hobbiest" label on. This would apply to anyone writing a GD-based application that does not intend to sell it. the term Educational leaves that open for interpretation somewhat (i.e., I'm not in academia, so does it apply to me, or, does it only apply if I'm developing a program but NOT when I release it?)

Otherwise, I like that all very much personally, and I would actually be inclined to put in the extra money and go to the Developer tier, even though the Hobbiest tier would still be appropriate.

I also notice that I would be making a trade-off here... This scheme would apply PER PLATFORM, excepting the educational/hobbiest and professional levels. That hurts someone in my position somewhat, I would of course prefer the Developer level be unlimited plaforms, but I think it's a fair trade-off between my interests and VI's money-making interests, and I would support this model.

Shahab, any thoughts?

[Guest]

So Shahab has spoken.

No fix for 2.04 as originally expected!

Goodbye Gapidraw!

[Shahab]

I noticed between the time I decided writing and the time it was posted some new and interesting comments and suggestion were posted.

I should go home to my family now but promise to reflect on them and be back tomorrow morning (Swedish time).

[fzammetti]

I want this point to be at the top again... The only substantial argument for a 2.04a version *IS NOT* simply because someone does not want to pay for GD. A much more substantial reason in light of all this licensing talk is for VI to SAVE FACE. I think it's fair to say that most of the people in this forum, at this point in time, have a very negative feeling about VI right now and will not touch 2.05 with a ten-foot poll. Why not get back some good will by putting out that bug fix? More importantly for you, you may get some people that decide to go with 2.05, if not now than in the future, because they feel you treat your developer community right. Without the bug fix, that won't be the case.

Put more concretely, that bug fix may very well make you money in the long-term.

It's a matter of trust... To put it bluntly, it can be called extortion for you to NOT release a bug fix, because people like me that were developing somthing based on 2.04 now have very few options, among them, release a game that might break on some devices... drop back to v2.03, which has bugs of it's own to deal with, or be in effect FORCED to pay for 2.05, which many people believe was your intention all along. Let me be clear: IF NO BUG FIXED 2.04 VERSION IS RELEASED, THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION IS THAT VI INTENTIONALLY INTRODUCED THAT BUG SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE NO GOOD OPTION BUT TO PAY FOR THE NEXT VERSION. This is extortion, and is even illegal in most countries.

Simply putting out that bug fix removes that thought from everyone's mind and does your appearance as a good company a world of good.

Now, on with the other points...

Shahab, you say my scenario and calculating examples are correct. I am very happy to hear that. However, it kind of begs a question: is it still true that it would be decided on a case-by-case basis?

If so, that's not good for me or, even moreso, for you. I mean, my example works great for me, and I can tell you that I wouldn't be that unfair to VI anyway. But, let's take me as a very specific example...

My current game is pretty far along under 2.04, so my business plan (such as it is ) does not have anything budgeted for GD. If I go to 2.05, I of course want my cost to be as next to nothing as I was expecting it to be all this time, so in this particular instance, my example might actually be what I want to do. My next game I would be OK with cutting VI in for a bit more, but not this time, since I didn't expect to be all along. So, my question is, will VI OK this example in this case? And if so, what's to stop me from doing the same thing the next time, and the next?

I guess I'm actually trying to help you out... If the intent is to make money of GD, which is fine with me in general terms, doesn't this scheme leave open the possibility of people screwing you? And if your going to deny applications precisely for that reason, at what point will that decision be made? I mean, if I hadn't started development yet and you said no to my example, that wouldn't be much of a hassle. But now, if would be one. Do you see my point?

Your second point about everyone applying for the license is dubious at best. I don't think you'll find very many people willing to "sign" anything without having a very clear idea of what it is. In fact, I doubt very many people will even APPLY until they examine carefully what they MAY be asked to sign if the application is accepted.

Which of course raises the question of what factors go into accepting or denying an application anyway?

You've said I think more than once that "single developers do not have to pay it they do not want to". How is that exactly? Can you site which parts of the licensing terms state that? If you are referring to the evaluation version, that's at best a misleading statement since it seems that an app based on that version cannot be distrivuted at all, and certainly not for sale.

[mlepage]

[fzammetti]

You know, a couple of things didn't dawn on me until just now...

Shahab, you write: "4) We have not decided on releasing any 2.04a version. If the only substantial argument for this is that someone simply does not want to pay for GapiDraw and still take commercial advantage of it then there are very good options open to him with our model as already explained quite a few times now. Otherwise it is an unnecessary and extra work for us to release and maintain yet another version"

Ok, the positive is that you haven't decided yet. Good, at least there's some hope for a 2.04a.

However... What extra work is it to release it? THE CODE IS ALREADY WRITTEN, is it not?, by virtue of it being fixed in 2.05? Just cut-and-paste the code into the 2.04 code base, package it up and post it. What's that, and hour's work? We're not asking for any new features, or even changes to existing features. We're simply asking for a bug, for which code has already been written, to be dealt with. I would ask you to consult Johan on this and verify how much work it actually would be.

In addition, I reference the following post:



In it, Johan talks about what specifically the bug is. Certainly doesn't sound terribly involved to fix it, wouldn't you agree?

You mention it would be another version for you to maintain. Well, no, it wouldn't. It would still be 2.04, wouldn't it?

Or, are you saying that you will not be supporting 2.04 any more? I can easily read into your statement and draw that conclusion. It follows logically that you would not be suppoprting any version prior to 2.05 in that case.

I understand that support to this point has basically been whatever you want to do, and I think 95% of it is posts in this forum or direct eMails to Johan. Should I conclude from your statement here that this will no longer be the case? Will Johan no longer be available to support a version prior to 2.05?

I think this is yet another crucial point for you to clarify, and I am absolutely certain others will agree with me on this point at least.

[denthorq]

Speaking of the word goodbye

--> If anyone's plan is a long term game development or multiple games development, then why not create your own library or game engine. Of course this will solve legal issues.

Remember : GD sits on top of GX. So URLIB sits on top of GX too.

--> If there's a fixed amount for GD licensing or a more safe terms, that would be great

Why ME... not doing all the above?

--> We'll I'm just a hobbyist and try to make use of my free time for developing PPC games and rely on GD previously.

( just bored reading, so i need to talk sometimes hehehe )

[ppcStudios]

[Pejo Software - Per]

[fzammetti]

A little further tweaked version for consideration...


General notes:

- Permission is NOT required for any release. No product will EVER be denied usage of GapiDraw under ANY circumstance, unless it involves known criminal activity.
- However, at any point before a for-profit product is released, VI MUST be notified of the impending release, and payment schedule in the case of percentage will begin from that day (see below).
- All levels include official roadmaps for future development
- Licenses are non-transferable unless OK'd by VI on a case-by-case basis (this of course does not apply to Hobbiest Level A). However, in a case where a product is purchased by an entity that would require a higher tier (i.e., I release a product as a hobbiest that is later purchased by a corporate entity), the purchasing entity will NOT be forced to purchase a new license on a higher tier, but they WILL be required to purchase a new license at the SAME level.
- Future licensing changes will NEVER be compulsory and will NEVER affect existing versions. In addition, previous versions that a developer signs a licensing terms document for will ALWAYS continue to be supported for one year after the immediately subsequent version is released (longer at VI's option).


Hobbiest Level A:

- no commercial sales (to be more specific: no monetary profit may be derived from distribution of the product)
- unlimited platforms
- free license with GD banner
- support options include forum support only with a guarantee from VI of best-effort only


Hobbiest Level B:

- shareware/commercial sales
- single platform
- $50 per title or 3% of sales, with GD banner
- when percentage is choosen, payment is required every 6 months for 18 months or in one lump sum at 18 months
- no upgrade versions that are not strictly bug fixes included
- support options include forum support and direct-to-develop eMails (i.e., you can eMail Johan directly) and eMail reply (not just an automated response) is required within 72 hours (3 days), resolution (where technically feasible) within 120 hours (5 days)


Developer Level

- Any developer releasing a product under an organization name, whether organization is a legal entity or not, must use this level, or Professional level. For instance, if I release a game as Omnytex Technologies, even though it's not a legal corporation, I do not qualify as a hobbiest. However, if I release it under the Frank W. Zammetti name, I could be considered a hobbiest. Note that the number of people involved DOES NOT have a bearing.
- shareware/commercial sales
- single platform
- $200 per title or 5% of sales, without GD banner
- when percentage is choosen, payment is required every 5 months for 15 months, or in one lump sum at 15 months
- one version upgrade aside from strictly bug fix versions are included
- support options include forum support and direct-to-develop eMails (i.e., you can eMail Johan directly) and eMail reply (not just an automated response) is required within 48 hours (2 days), resolution (where technically feasible) within 96 hours (4 days)


Professional Level

- shareware/commercial sales
- unlimited platforms
- $1000 or 10% of sales, unlimited usage without GD banner
- when percentage is choosen, payment is required every 4 for 12 months, or in one lump sum at 12 months
- two versions aside from strictly bug fix versions are included
- support options include forum support and direct-to-develop eMails (i.e., you can eMail Johan directly) and eMail reply (not just an automated response) is required within 36 hours (1.5 days), resolution (where technically feasible) within 72 hours (3 days)

[efortier]

[Guest]

I have supported gapidraw along the way. I even donated utilities that are being shipped with it. (Do I get royalties for that now, just kidding.) So I figure I am entitled to my $0.02, and here they are and they are long...

1) You should release a patch release for 2.04. It is the right thing to do, and it shows you aren't going to screw people over later. If your going to commercialize gapidraw you have to act like a business. A business that holds back a bug fix, for software that others are dependent on, simply to force them to sign a new agreement, is doomed. No one will trust you ever again and when you work with third part libraries trust is everything. Plus it is just silly. Lets say no one pays for 2.05 because 2.04 is fixed and free. Who cares, you are sitting on palm and symbian ports that everyone will pay for because it gets them into markets they aren't already in.

2) The license is vague, anything vague is scary, plus it is a pain in the $%@ to have to submit each version of each product on each platform, and I will never digitally sign anything unless I know exactly what I am agreeing to.

3) Follow FMOD's lead they have worked all this out. Here is a link to their license . Just copy their terms word for word and I think everyone will be happy. They cover the "if your product is free FMOD is free", "if you are a shareware company you pay a little", and "if you are a real company you pay a lot" situations. They allow you to buy platform by platform and title by title, or they allow you to get an all you can eat license. The terms are very simple to understand and the prices they charge are reasonable.

The only other thing I have to say is, I feel sorry for you Johan, and I hope your baby doesn't get crushed.

--Tully

[denthorq]

[egarayblas]