malczews@girtab.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski) (08/27/89)
Now that Apple distributes Allegro Common Lisp, and includes the stand-alone application generator, are there any licensing fees involved when distributing applications created by it? I would likely know had I upgraded from 1.2.1 to 1.2.2, but I've been holding out for 1.3 since mid-1988, and intend to continue to do so... -- Frank Malczewski (malczews@girtab.usc.edu)
alms@brazil.cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (08/28/89)
Now that Apple distributes Allegro Common Lisp, and includes the stand-alone application generator, are there any licensing fees involved when distributing applications created by it? The licensing is similar to MacApp. I believe the cost is $100 per year. This gives you the right to distribute as many copies of as many applications as you like. Note that the applications do -not- include the compiler. If you need to include the compiler, then you need to be a VAR, with more complicated contracts and terms.
hallett@shoreland.uucp (Jeff Hallett x4-6328) (08/30/89)
In article <ALMS.89Aug28111419@brazil.cambridge.apple.com> alms@brazil.cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) writes: > > Now that Apple distributes Allegro Common Lisp, and includes the stand-alone > application generator, are there any licensing fees involved when > distributing applications created by it? > >The licensing is similar to MacApp. I believe the cost is $100 per >year. This gives you the right to distribute as many copies of as >many applications as you like. Note that the applications do -not- >include the compiler. If you need to include the compiler, then >you need to be a VAR, with more complicated contracts and terms. Ok, this may be a dumb question, but, how are they gonna know? *Shields Up! Lock Phasers On Target! All Banks, FIRE!* Isn't this really kinda ridiculous? Apple wants people to write software for the Macintosh, but they charge people liscensing fees to use their compilers and skeletons. Also, APDA was a great source of help until Apple took it over and began raping everyone on the price of the coding tools/examples. Seems to me that Apple really owes a lot of thanks to the haquer-extraordinaires that wrote PD/Shareware stuff for helping get the Mac off the ground. So this is the thanks they get? It kinda bothers me that Apple, which started as a 2-bit bunch of hackers, has really flipped 180 degrees to the point where they'd charge people for breathing the air in Cupertino if they could. For cryin' out loud, Apple, cut the non-corporate-deep-pocket, non-profit, programmin'-for-the-fun-of-it people some slack, will ya? *Evasive Maneuvers, execute!* -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5173 : EMAIL - hallett@positron.gemed.ge.com
alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (08/31/89)
>>The licensing is similar to MacApp. I believe the cost is $100 per >>year. This gives you the right to distribute as many copies of as >>many applications as you like. Note that the applications do -not- >>include the compiler. If you need to include the compiler, then >>you need to be a VAR, with more complicated contracts and terms. >Ok, this may be a dumb question, but, how are they gonna know? How are they going to know what? 1) That you're distributing applications? They won't know, but if you do it without paying the $100, you're breaking the law. (It's the same deal as LSP software having to acknowledge that it was written in LSP.) 2) Know whether the compiler is included? It's simple: when you make a stand-alone application, the compiler is automatically removed. >Isn't this really kinda ridiculous? Apple wants people to write >software for the Macintosh, but they charge people liscensing fees to >use their compilers and skeletons. >[various extended flames about Apple selfishness deleted] When Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp was sold by Coral (i.e. before Apple purchased it), the licensing fees were much higher. The cost was between $30 and $60 for every copy of your application which you sold or gave away. When Apple purchased the Lisp, they lowered the price, bundled in some tools which Coral had sold as add-ons, and lowered the licensing cost to a <largely symbolic> annual fee. As a point of reference, most other Common Lisp vendors (Sun, Lucid, Gold Hill), charge a per-copy fee for run-time licences. Apple has one of the lowest costs in the business, if not the lowest. They mostly just want acknowledgment -andrew Disclaimer: I used to work for Coral, now I work for Apple, I wish everything was free and no one had to earn a living, and my opinions are my own, not my companies.
vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) (09/01/89)
In article <ALMS.89Aug30161450@brazil.cambridge.apple.com> alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) writes: >When Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp was sold by Coral (i.e. before >Apple purchased it), the licensing fees were much higher. The >cost was between $30 and $60 for every copy of your application which >you sold or gave away. OK, so Coral's policy was worse than Apple's. Great. But Apple's policy still sucks. The fact that Coral had an even worse policy doesn't justify anything. > When Apple purchased the Lisp, they lowered >the price, bundled in some tools which Coral had sold as add-ons, and >lowered the licensing cost to a <largely symbolic> annual fee. Well, if the fee is so <largely symbolic>, why not just get rid of it? It's probably not worth the bureaucracy it generates. Also, that $100 means a lot more to me (small, poor independent developer), than it does to Apple (rich, $5 billion dollar corporation). >As a point of reference, most other Common Lisp vendors (Sun, Lucid, >Gold Hill), charge a per-copy fee for run-time licences. Apple has Why are you creating an (artificial) distinction for Lisp products? Why should a Lisp compiler require licensing fees, but not a C compiler? Symantec does a very good business with their C and Pascal compilers, and they don't find it necessary to impose licensing fees. >one of the lowest costs in the business, if not the lowest. They >mostly just want acknowledgment OK, so if they really just want acknowledgement, why not adopt a policy something like Symantec's; i.e. require that the message "This product was produced with Macintosh Allegro Common Lisp" appear in the About box or something. I don't see how me writing them a check for $100 "acknowledges" anything. >Disclaimer: I used to work for Coral, now I work for Apple, I wish >everything was free and no one had to earn a living, and my opinions >are my own, not my companies. I don't think anyone's arguing that Apple should give everything away for free. I think Apple is entitled to recover their costs on their development products. But royalty fees on compilers are absolutely inexcusable. I mean, I've already paid for the product once; why should I have to pay again in order to use it for its intended purpose? Another one of my pet peeves: MacApp. Apple is touting this as the "next-generation" way of doing Mac development, making the Mac much easier to develop for. Apple should be encouraging everyone to adopt this swell new technology, right? Wrong; instead they charge a $100/yr royalty fee for developing with MacApp. Why? I don't have to pay $100/yr to make Toolbox calls. Why should I have to pay $100/yr to use MacApp? I'm amazed that Apple can't seem to figure out what a brain-damaged policy this is. Apple should not be running their development services as a profit center. It's quite apparent that they are doing just that (the recent price hikes at APDA, on MPW, etc.) Apple should be creating incentive for people to develop for the Mac, not disincentive. While these greedy policies may make more money for them in the short run, it will probably hurt them in long run. ---- Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (09/02/89)
In article <2034@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) writes: > Well, if the fee is so <largely symbolic>, why not just get rid of it? I don't think it is purely symbolic. There is some legal reasons behind it. > development products. But royalty fees on compilers are absolutely > inexcusable. I mean, I've already paid for the product once; why I don't know the Lisp environment, but there are no royalties for using MPW compilers. Once you start shipping some of Apple's code (as with MacApp), then there are licensing fees. I would guess that shipping a product with Macintosh Lisp results in shipping a significant amount of Apple's code, hence the licensing fee. Also, remember this is a flat fee, not a per copy fee. > this swell new technology, right? Wrong; instead they charge a > $100/yr royalty fee for developing with MacApp. Why? I don't have to > pay $100/yr to make Toolbox calls. Why should I have to pay $100/yr > to use MacApp? You don't distribute the Toolbox code with your application. You do distribute the MacApp code. You don't have to pay any fee unless you distribute an application. The $100 fee is for commercial applications. Presumably if you sell applications for a living you can afford a licensing fee. If you produce non-profit applications than the licensing fee is much smaller (the last I heard it was $10). We made this change to the licensing agreement after complaints from users. > Apple should not be running their development services as a profit > center. It's quite apparent that they are doing just that (the recent If you think these licensing fees make a profit, then you are mistaken. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) (09/06/89)
In article <4012@internal.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <2034@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. >Vita) writes: > >> Well, if the fee is so <largely symbolic>, why not just get rid of it? > >I don't think it is purely symbolic. There is some legal reasons >behind it. Ah, yes, the notoriously hyperactive Apple Legal Department rears its ugly collective head again. *Sigh*. (Q: "What do you have when you have 100 lawyers up to their necks in cement?" A: "Not enough cement.") Well, "I'm no lawyer, but"... I do have a brother who is a musician and who has dealt extensively with the Copyright Office with respect to copyrighting songs. As I recall, the key factor in preserving your copyright is the inclusion of a copyright notice on all distributed copies of the work in question, and not whether you charge any money for them. I mean, I've glanced over the guidelines a couple of times myself, and nowhere do I recall seeing anything to the effect of: "In order to retain your copyright, it will be necessary for you to gouge people to the tune of $100 per year." I mean, it's possible that I skipped over that paragraph, but I don't think so. :-) >> development products. But royalty fees on compilers are absolutely >> inexcusable. I mean, I've already paid for the product once; why > >I don't know the Lisp environment, but there are no royalties for using >MPW compilers. Once you start shipping some of Apple's code (as with >MacApp), then there are licensing fees. I would guess that shipping a >product with Macintosh Lisp results in shipping a significant amount of >Apple's code, hence the licensing fee. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but when I link a THINK C application, I include a "significant amount" of Symantec's code (libraries and so forth). Why is that Apple finds it necessary to charge money to preserve their copyright in this situation, but Symantec does not? Are there some special, secret copyright laws I don't know about that apply only to Apple? Another analogous situation: SuperCard. As I understand it, "compiled" SuperCard projects can be distributed royalty-free. I'm sure that these compiled SuperCard stacks contain a LOT of Silicon Beach's code. But SB doesn't charge royalties. What gives? Maybe your lawyers should consider switching to a decaffeinated brand. :-) >> this swell new technology, right? Wrong; instead they charge a >> $100/yr royalty fee for developing with MacApp. Why? I don't have to >> pay $100/yr to make Toolbox calls. Why should I have to pay $100/yr >> to use MacApp? > >You don't distribute the Toolbox code with your application. You do >distribute the MacApp code. True enough, but not really relevant to the point I'm trying to get at. To the developer, it's a non-issue as to whether any of Apple's code is included when they distribute an application. Developers just want to make calls to standard development libraries, and for the most part, they don't care whether the code they're calling happens to exist in ROM or on disk. It isn't the developer's fault that MacApp is not in ROM. Apple should not be forcing them to possibly choose a less optimal development environment on the basis of this distinction. Developers want something that makes developing applications for the Mac easier, faster, less error-prone. This is exactly what MacApp is for, and if Apple was smart, they'd be bending over backwards to get developers to use it. Happy developers == more quality applications for the Mac == greater perceived utility for the consumer == increased market share for Apple == increased $$$ for Apple. By "bending over backwards", I mean finding a way to let them use MacApp without imposing any additional financial burden, and not hassling people over petty issues such as whether any of "their code" is being included. Shabby licensing fees and overpriced compilers just don't cut it. Sure, $100/yr doesn't sound like a lot, but for many people (myself included), it's the Principle of the Thing. Recently I had a situation for which something like MacApp would have been a great help. I eventually decided to go with Paul DuBois' excellent (and *free*) TransSkel package instead. Not that I necessarily wanted to distribute the application commercially, but in the event that maybe I did someday, I decided that I would rather not have this legal and financial entanglement hanging over my head. Surely you see how these licensing fees create disincentive, and how this disincentive is bad for Apple in the long run. Other companies with far fewer financial resources than Apple manage to get along just fine without licensing fees. If Apple really had the desire, they could get by without them too. >You don't have to pay any fee unless you distribute an application. The >$100 fee is for commercial applications. Presumably if you sell >applications for a living you can afford a licensing fee. I don't think charging for these kinds of things is justified by people's ability to pay. I mean, presumably if I am selling applications for a living, I could afford to pay $500 for System Software upgrades. Does this mean that Apple should start charging $500 for system upgrades? Of course not. >> Apple should not be running their development services as a profit >> center. It's quite apparent that they are doing just that (the recent > >If you think these licensing fees make a profit, then you are mistaken. Hmm, let's think about this statement for a minute. Presumably, lots (dozens? hundreds?) of people are sending Apple checks for $100, and Apple is cashing them, and somehow Apple is managing not to make any money on the deal. Gee, you must have a lot of overhead there at Apple. :-) But seriously, where is Apple's cost in this transaction? Anyways, what I actually said was that Apple should not be trying to make money off their development services as a whole (not just licensing fees). Since you were careful not to deny this, and I am trying to win this argument :-), I will take this as an admission that the converse is in fact true: i.e., Apple does indeed make a profit from their development services. Herein lies the crux of the argument. I argue that such a policy, while it may make perfect fiscal sense to a lot of myopic bean counters at Apple, in the long run, is bad for the Macintosh and thus bad for Apple. Apple should concentrate on selling boxes, which is where the real money is, and supply the support software which adds value to the machine at their cost. In this latter category I would put both system software and development tools/services. Apple has a commendable policy with respect to the first item, and a mixed record on the second: they give some things away from free (i.e. ResEdit, tech notes), but gouge for other things (i.e., MPW shell/compilers, MacApp, ACL). My fear is that Apple will shoot itself in the foot by pricing the small developer out of the market. In my opinion, the small developer is where most of the nifty innovations come from. If Apple squeezes the little guy out, only the big, boring players will be left, and the Macintosh will suffer as a result. Would you really like to see the Mac market left to clumsy, lumbering behemoths like Microsoft and Ashton-Tate, companies for whom feeble efforts like Excel 2.2 represent "innovation"? Not me. Case in point: look at Nisus, a product from a relatively small developer. Microsoft has been hacking on Word for five or six years, and these guys at Paragon come along one day and just blow it out of the water. Amazing. We need more people like this. We aren't going to get them if they have to cough up $250 for a shell. It just makes good business sense for Apple to make Macintosh development as easy and as cheap as possible. The benefits of such a policy might not be as tangible as a check for $100, but they are just as real, and much more significant over the long haul. >Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. >Object Specialist ---- Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
hallett@shoreland.uucp (Jeff Hallett x4-6328) (09/06/89)
In article <2117@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >Anyways, what I actually said was that Apple should not be trying to >make money off their development services as a whole (not just >licensing fees). Since you were careful not to deny this, and I am >trying to win this argument :-), I will take this as an admission that >the converse is in fact true: i.e., Apple does indeed make a profit >from their development services. Herein lies the crux of the >argument. I argue that such a policy, while it may make perfect >fiscal sense to a lot of myopic bean counters at Apple, in the long >run, is bad for the Macintosh and thus bad for Apple. Apple should >concentrate on selling boxes, which is where the real money is, and >supply the support software which adds value to the machine at their >cost. In this latter category I would put both system software and >development tools/services. Apple has a commendable policy with >respect to the first item, and a mixed record on the second: they give >some things away from free (i.e. ResEdit, tech notes), but gouge for >other things (i.e., MPW shell/compilers, MacApp, ACL). This pretty much sums up what I was talking about in the first place - Apple is clearly gouging the development arena in a very inconsistent way, despite what Larry has to say. The charge for some things and not for others and it is pure BS that when one compiles with MPW's compilers that no Apple code is included: Mark correctly points out that libraries and the like are linked in. I remember some earlier compilers that tried to charge licensing fees for using their compilers - they aren't around anymore. Apple tried to make it clear that they are not in the software business when they spawned Claris. Most of the tools that Apple distributes as developer aids were home-brew things in the first place, developed internally for internal use (presumably generated on some overhead budgetary allotment). Someone got the great idea that "if they helped up, they can help others" and wanted to distribute them. Why charge more than the distrubution costs then? This is why APDA was great - a small-time developer could get good, useful tools and packages ("Programming with MacInTalk", $10) for a really good price. I remember when the Mac first came out you could become a registered developer for only $2500 a year - wow what a deal for some tech notes, software updates and free phone calls. :^) This scenario reminds me of a cartoon with the Defense Department shaking hands with the General Public saying "We are here to serve you" with the other hand in the Public's pocket. "We are here to save you from the Big Blue evil empire..." Apple, stick to selling boxes. You make enough overhead on those alone to remain EXTREMELY solvent. Help the people writing the software. -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@positron.gemed.ge.com