Lasso 8.6 licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
57 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

decorior

>
>
> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?

Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar" framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a community for someone to build a business on it.

Deco
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Marc Pope-2
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
Yeah, if we got a $200,000 server and shared it, that's only for 1 Server Install.


On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

> Or one of us could buy one perpetual unlimited instances license for $5999, and share it.  LassoSoft would never know!


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Marc Pope-2
In reply to this post by decorior
Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)

-marc

On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:

>
>>
>>
>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
>
> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar" framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a community for someone to build a business on it.
>
> Deco


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

decorior
I thought LEAP was more CMS

On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Marc Pope wrote:

> Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)
>
> -marc
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
>>
>> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar" framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a community for someone to build a business on it.
>>
>> Deco
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

Deco Rior
[hidden email]

O:(720) 207-2806
F:(303) 942-7417

TennisSource.Net
software to power your tennis facility


This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information.   Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

jasonhuck
In reply to this post by Marc Pope-2
The absolute *last* thing I am interested in seeing from Rhinofrog is
a blurring of the lines between Lasso and LEAP, or making the terms
synonymous in the minds of customers and users, as you have with
Ruby/Rails.

- jason





On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Marc Pope <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)
>
> -marc
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
>>
>> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar" framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a community for someone to build a business on it.
>>
>> Deco
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Marc Pope-2
In reply to this post by decorior

What about Knop?


On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Deco Rior wrote:

> I thought LEAP was more CMS
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Marc Pope wrote:
>
>> Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)
>>
>> -marc
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.), much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
>>>
>>> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar" framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a community for someone to build a business on it.
>>>
>>> Deco
>>
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>
> Deco Rior
> [hidden email]
>
> O:(720) 207-2806
> F:(303) 942-7417
>
> TennisSource.Net
> software to power your tennis facility
>
>
> This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information.   Any unauthorized review, use, printing, copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Chris Wik-4
In reply to this post by Clive Bruton
So to summarise:

* Most people are not arguing that the pricing for Lasso 9 is unreasonable

* Some, who run one or two instances of 8.5, are more or less unaffected by the licensing change in 8.6 (many of my clients included)

* All major Lasso 8.5 hosting providers have confirmed that the new license model does not work for their existing pricing structures, and they are therefore not able to upgrade their 8.5 servers to 8.6

* Hosting providers must instead divert resources to deploying new Lasso 8.6 servers instead of focusing on Lasso 9

* Pretty much everyone agrees that changing the licensing model for a 90% bug fix update is a bad idea

* Those who are largely unaffected by 8.5 bugs are put off by the upgrade complexity, so won't bother with it

* Lasso 8.6 will NOT therefore be adopted by a majority of users

It seems to me like the best solution, which I initially suggested, would be to keep the licensing model for 8.6 the same as it was in 8.5 and simply charge a once-off upgrade fee. Everyone can then take advantage of all the nice fixes in 8.6, and make their own decisions about 9 and all its licensing complexities going forward.

If the survey LassoSoft ran asked me "Based on this new license structure, are you willing to pay for an 8.6 update?" - my answer, as a hosting provider, would have been a definitive No.

Chris

--
Chris Wik
Anu Internet Services Ltd


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Erik Vandermey - WebCentrix, Inc.
+1

On Mar 18, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Chris Wik wrote:

> It seems to me like the best solution, which I initially suggested, would be to keep the licensing model for 8.6 the same as it was in 8.5 and simply charge a once-off upgrade fee. Everyone can then take advantage of all the nice fixes in 8.6, and make their own decisions about 9 and all its licensing complexities going forward.
>
> If the survey LassoSoft ran asked me "Based on this new license structure, are you willing to pay for an 8.6 update?" - my answer, as a hosting provider, would have been a definitive No.


Regards,
---
Erik Van-der-Mey • [hidden email] • (AIM/iChat: [hidden email]) • http://webcentrix.net
WebCentrix, Inc. • Web Hosting/Co-Location/Dedicated Servers  • Kerio Connect/Control Reseller







#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

John May-2
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
I would add that the 8.6 upgrade should have supported *all* the
operating systems and versions that 8.5 did.  We *can't* even upgrade
some of our 8.5 servers because of such.  And LassoSoft not having older
test machines to accomplish this is a BS excuse, IMHO.

        - John


On 3/18/11 4:29 PM, Chris Wik wrote:

> So to summarise:
>
> * Most people are not arguing that the pricing for Lasso 9 is
> unreasonable
>
> * Some, who run one or two instances of 8.5, are more or less
> unaffected by the licensing change in 8.6 (many of my clients
> included)
>
> * All major Lasso 8.5 hosting providers have confirmed that the new
> license model does not work for their existing pricing structures,
> and they are therefore not able to upgrade their 8.5 servers to 8.6
>
> * Hosting providers must instead divert resources to deploying new
> Lasso 8.6 servers instead of focusing on Lasso 9
>
> * Pretty much everyone agrees that changing the licensing model for a
> 90% bug fix update is a bad idea
>
> * Those who are largely unaffected by 8.5 bugs are put off by the
> upgrade complexity, so won't bother with it
>
> * Lasso 8.6 will NOT therefore be adopted by a majority of users
>
> It seems to me like the best solution, which I initially suggested,
> would be to keep the licensing model for 8.6 the same as it was in
> 8.5 and simply charge a once-off upgrade fee. Everyone can then take
> advantage of all the nice fixes in 8.6, and make their own decisions
> about 9 and all its licensing complexities going forward.
>
> If the survey LassoSoft ran asked me "Based on this new license
> structure, are you willing to pay for an 8.6 update?" - my answer, as
> a hosting provider, would have been a definitive No.
>
> Chris
>
> -- Chris Wik Anu Internet Services Ltd
>


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
John May : President                   http://www.pointinspace.com/
Point In Space Internet Solutions             [hidden email]

              Twitter: http://twitter.com/pointinspace/
            Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PointInSpace/

         Professional FileMaker Pro, MySQL, PHP & Lasso Hosting
           on shared, virtual and hardware dedicated servers


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Bil Corry-3
In reply to this post by Ke Carlton-3
Ke Carlton wrote on 3/18/2011 10:00 AM:
> My CLD license doesn't really count for much as I can ONLY install
> them on one OS — effectively my laptop. It would be awesome if I could
> use three where ever I like — but it seems I can't. According to the
> other thread I can't even run one of them VMd on my laptop as it's
> effectively another OS...

Sounds like the barrier to running your instances anywhere is that LassoSoft can't regulate how many you're running; you could install it on 10 machines.  Seems like the solution is to build an iTunes-like capability where each instance phones home ONCE upon first run, grabs a run key that is mixed with the machine ID and stored on disk (to prevent cloning of the drive onto other computers), then when you've reached the limit, you can log in and purchase more.  Deactivation of licenses would have to happen from the instance no longer being used, or in the case of a crashed drive, theft, or hardware upgrade, you'd had to work with LassoSoft to deactivate it.


- Bil

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Wade Maxfield
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
On 19/03/2011, at 5:49 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

>
> On 3/18/11 at 3:00 PM, [hidden email] (Ke Carlton) pronounced:
>
>>
>> On 18 March 2011 14:35, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If however I *did* need to upgrade, I own a CLD license (pending) for 3
>>> instances, which I could deploy one each on two different VMs and have one
>>> remaining.  The model works for me.
>
>> Er no, all of those instances would need to run under the *same* vm or
>> piece of hardware — according to the other thread...
>>
>> Still work for you?
>>
>> Ke

>
> Check the diagram, first light green box.  So, yup, still works for me.
> http://www.lassosoft.com/lasso-licenses-Explained
>
> Plus my ISP would not have to buy an instance or two.
>
> --steve
>


Actually Steve, I don't read it that way at all. Each VM needs it's own License.  The CLD is only a single License that includes 3 instances. So you could run 3 x 8.6, or 3 x 9.0 or some combination of each, but only on a single VM (or Physical Server NOT VMWare Host)

 - Wade


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
On 3/18/11 at 5:56 PM, [hidden email] (Chris Wik) pronounced:

>However for the small shared hosting type of client, which is
>where the vast majority of people start out, we're looking at
>almost doubling the entry level account pricing. Instead of
>$15/mo for an account with Lasso, it's now $15/mo + $15/mo for
>a Lasso instance license.
>
>Yes that price point will drop a little with scale, but to get
>it down to $5 you would need 175 instance licenses...
>
>With starting prices at $30/mo for a Lasso account, I don't
>know how Lasso will ever become mass market. Especially when
>you can get PHP accounts for one-tenth of that price.

Now after running this scenario thoroughly with solid numbers, I
have to wonder whether the pricing model for those who run a
large number of instances (>10) per license was an honest
mistake.  I hope that folks in this situation give TF the
benefit of the doubt, and engage TF to reach a mutually
agreeable resolution.  Whether that's a parting of ways, a
change in the pricing, an agreement to encourage individuals to
become CLDs and use their own licenses, or merely a better
understanding of options and the entire situation, remains to be seen.

Any Lasso host that competes in the cheap/free hosting space is
doomed?  Who can compete against free hosting (Google App Engine
for Python and Java, Google Sites with Docs, etc.).  It's a
totally different business model.

--steve

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder              
Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Ke Carlton-3
Upon further review, I stand corrected.  Although not as
generous, the new model will still work for me because I am
consolidating VMs and Lasso sites where there will be one Lasso
site per VM.  It's not so great for multiple Lasso site instance users.

Looking back, Blueworld threw open the barn doors by inventing
Lasso sites (the worst name ever) and not charging for
additional site instances at that time.  It served the purpose
of providing ISPs a cheap alternative to purchasing multiple
Lasso server licenses and separate hardware, and where they
could provide a level of security on a per client basis.  As a
newbie developer at the time, I was finally able to afford Lasso
hosting ($10/month vs. $50-100+/month).

Now with VMs and control panels, it is possible to clone a VM on
a beefy server, and the cost to do so is reasonable, secure and
reliable on a per client basis.  However licensing of Lasso on
VMs has never really been explicitly defined.  Why buy the cow
when you can get the milk for free?

With the new pricing models, it is not possible to milk a
rhinoceros, but you can still milk your cow.

If I were an ISP, I would recommend my customers to become CLDs
and bear the cost of 8.6 and 9 licenses.  The developer gets an
impressive marketing package and a license on the side for
$49/month, and the ISP does not have to fuss with licensing.  If
the developer declines, and they want to upgrade to 8.6 or 9,
then they should still pay the ISP's cost plus profit margin to
provide that service.

Or keep milking your old 8.5 cow.  Obviously it has been
profitable and sustainable for ISPs and most of their customers.

For those who need 8.6 or 9, we now have a viable option, albeit
at a higher cost.  I assume that those who need 8.6 or 9 also
demand a higher level of server resources (bandwidth, disk
space, CPU usage, etc.), and should not be on a shared server
with Lasso site instance environment any longer, i.e., they've
outgrown cheap shared hosting and should have their own VM.  
Maybe that's not true.  If so, I'd like to hear your own
specific situation.

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 5:00 PM, [hidden email] (Ke Carlton) pronounced:

>If you're referring to:
>http://www.lassosoft.com/usercontent/licensing/LicenseDiagram.png —
>note, the first box is two instances on a single VM — you mentioned
>"which I could deploy one each on two different VMs and have one
>remaining" which according to that diagram (and the other thread) you
>cannot do. You'd need to install the three instances on the same OS.
>That's why this has fail written all over it.
>
>My CLD license doesn't really count for much as I can ONLY install
>them on one OS — effectively my laptop. It would be awesome if I could
>use three where ever I like — but it seems I can't. According to the
>other thread I can't even run one of them VMd on my laptop as it's
>effectively another OS...
>
>Ke
>
>On 18 March 2011 16:49, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>Check the diagram, first light green box.  So, yup, still works for me.
>>http://www.lassosoft.com/lasso-licenses-Explained
>>
>>Plus my ISP would not have to buy an instance or two.
>>
>>--steve
>>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder              
Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Marc Pope-2
Could you rephrase the question into something more explicit?

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 3:00 PM, [hidden email] (Marc Pope) pronounced:

> What about Knop?
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>
> > I thought LEAP was more CMS
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Marc Pope wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)
> >>
> >> -marc
> >>
> >> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine
> and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.),
> much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
> >>>
> >>> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar"
> framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that
> Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were
> considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a
> community for someone to build a business on it.
> >>>
> >>> Deco
> >>
> >>
> >> #############################################################
> >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> >> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> >> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> >> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >
> > Deco Rior
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > O:(720) 207-2806
> > F:(303) 942-7417
> >
> > TennisSource.Net
> > software to power your tennis facility
> >
> >
> > This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain
> confidential and privileged information.   Any unauthorized review, use, printing,
> copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email
> message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you
> >
> >
> > #############################################################
> > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> >  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> > Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
> >
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

stevepiercy
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4
I think that's a fair and reasonable summary.

--steve


On 3/18/11 at 9:29 PM, [hidden email] (Chris Wik) pronounced:

> So to summarise:
>
> * Most people are not arguing that the pricing for Lasso 9 is unreasonable
>
> * Some, who run one or two instances of 8.5, are more or less unaffected by the
> licensing change in 8.6 (many of my clients included)
>
> * All major Lasso 8.5 hosting providers have confirmed that the new license model
> does not work for their existing pricing structures, and they are therefore not
> able to upgrade their 8.5 servers to 8.6
>
> * Hosting providers must instead divert resources to deploying new Lasso 8.6
> servers instead of focusing on Lasso 9
>
> * Pretty much everyone agrees that changing the licensing model for a 90% bug fix
> update is a bad idea
>
> * Those who are largely unaffected by 8.5 bugs are put off by the upgrade
> complexity, so won't bother with it
>
> * Lasso 8.6 will NOT therefore be adopted by a majority of users
>
> It seems to me like the best solution, which I initially suggested, would be to
> keep the licensing model for 8.6 the same as it was in 8.5 and simply charge a
> once-off upgrade fee. Everyone can then take advantage of all the nice fixes in
> 8.6, and make their own decisions about 9 and all its licensing complexities going
> forward.
>
> If the survey LassoSoft ran asked me "Based on this new license structure, are you
> willing to pay for an 8.6 update?" - my answer, as a hosting provider, would have
> been a definitive No.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wik
> Anu Internet Services Ltd
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>


#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Clive Bruton
In reply to this post by Chris Wik-4

On 18 Mar 2011, at 20:29, Chris Wik wrote:

> * Most people are not arguing that the pricing for Lasso 9 is  
> unreasonable


I think that is because they are concentrating on the 8.6 issues at  
the moment, and have reservations about whether they will upgrade.  
Silence on the issue doesn't imply agreement. It seems an odd state  
of affairs that, without a significant upgrade (or any enhancement at  
all) the licencing model of Lasso 9 is changed. So you effectively  
have a set of developers that have one licence model, and another set  
who have another.

>
> * Some, who run one or two instances of 8.5, are more or less  
> unaffected by the licensing change in 8.6 (many of my clients  
> included)

The issue here, I believe, is not whether one is directly affected or  
not, but how a change in 8.6 is perceived. My personal take on this  
is that where I have a piece of software that is offered as an  
upgrade, and the licencing/features have changed significantly  
(detrimentally) in that process, then I'm not sure that it an  
"upgrade" at all. The example that comes to mind is one I experienced  
with accounting software, where the upgrade introduced a licence  
"phone home" (where eventually, as I detailed previously, the licence  
server was turned off and anyone using it would have had a dead app)  
and the number of "files" was changed from unlimited to five. While I  
couldn't see into the future with the licence checking, it generally  
"felt" like something I didn't want to get into. The file restriction  
was immediately not a problem, because I was only using three files  
anyway - but it also seemed like a restriction that was set pretty  
low, and which I didn't want to start bumping my head against.

I found out these restriction after I bought the upgrade. But  
consequently I never installed it, and the old version of the app is  
still running today (I figured out the format of one of the annual  
tables that needed an update, and just hack it whenever needed).

So, I think the moral of the story is that, probably, a licence that  
goes from "unlimited" to "one" (or more for more money), is not an  
upgrade at all. I'm not entirely sure of the ramifications of the  
restrictions for me right now, but I am very wary of putting myself  
between the jaws of that particular vice.


-- Clive

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lasso 8.6 licensing

Marc Pope-2
In reply to this post by stevepiercy
Just was talking that lasso doesnt have a framework but there are several out there.

On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Could you rephrase the question into something more explicit?
>
> --steve
>
>
> On 3/18/11 at 3:00 PM, [hidden email] (Marc Pope) pronounced:
>
>> What about Knop?
>>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>
>>> I thought LEAP was more CMS
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Marc Pope wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe they will release LEAP for free  and offer paid support options :)
>>>>
>>>> -marc
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could see paying a premium price for a Zend-like hi-performance Lasso engine
>> and a lower price (almost free?) for just basic Lasso (no JIT, no support, etc.),
>> much like the Zend/PHP relationship. Was this kind of model considered?
>>>>>
>>>>> Zend is really a framework. I have already pitched that without a "stellar"
>> framework then it will be tough to compete with just a language. I am hoping that
>> Sean rethinks this, since my prior comments about needing a framework were
>> considered not part of the LassoSoft responsibility. I doubt Lasso has enough of a
>> community for someone to build a business on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deco
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> #############################################################
>>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Deco Rior
>>> [hidden email]
>>>
>>> O:(720) 207-2806
>>> F:(303) 942-7417
>>>
>>> TennisSource.Net
>>> software to power your tennis facility
>>>
>>>
>>> This electronic mail message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity
>> to which it is addressed. This message, together with any attachment, may contain
>> confidential and privileged information.   Any unauthorized review, use, printing,
>> copying, retention, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email
>> message to the sender and delete all copies of this message. Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>> #############################################################
>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>> the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>
>>
>> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
>> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>>
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
> <[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>

123