next »

[stefangranholm]

Argh CRAP

I was beginning to use the component big time, on my free 2 websites.

That means free becouse Joomla and Components/Addons are free. No banners either.

So for me, Ill change to Events Calendar (http://extensions.joomla.org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,95/Itemid,35/)

Now, I DO understand why you are charging, however, us who use free components, to make free websites, this is a KILLER for us an Jcal. I would have wished for banners or something in the site instead.

I hope you are doinge the right thing. Many will leave, I think, and you might stand with very few users left. BUT I hope, that you will get cash, so you kan keep improving.

Well, Good luck, and goodbye Jcal and Hallo Events Calender

[V-man]

Thanks for the note and good luck with events cal.

[marq]

Hi V-man,

to be honest, I don't like your decision (someone pointed out that you started from an existing application already - do you share with the original autor / authors?), but I can understand why you did it.

Just one thing I really can't understand:

"To satisify the terms of the GPL, the JCal Pro source code can now be found at http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/jcalpro/"

I mean, I'd guess that after getting the source from the svn, one just needs to produce the  zip files from the various subdirectories of the working copy - effectively bypassing your business. So what's the point - getting money out of people who don't know how to use subversion? Or where to download the clients for free?

Strange...

  Christian.

[V-man]

My target audience is not experienced users like yourself. Certainly i expect folks with the expertise to go and make their own packages. If you are not one of those people, then the $5 represents a value-add to the customer.

I suspect that of the people with expertise, some of them will still pay the nominal fee for (i) the convenience and (ii) to support the project since we have already put a lot of work into the current stable and the next release looks even better). In more general terms, anyone who charges a fee to install/customize Joomla and/or a Joomla extension/template could be described as exploiting those with less knowledge. However, the entire IT services industry is based on this model, regardless of the license of their software (when discussing software services at least).

As I am sure you are aware, knowledge is a commodity that is sold in businesses every day. Just look at how many developers (including Joomla 3PDs and core team members) are 'consultants'.

In any case, i certainly respect your views. I hope the reverse is true.

EDIT: Just wanted to point out that the origins of JCal Pro have long been published on this site for those who may be new to Mambo/Joomla and not be familiar with the history.

[marq]

Yes,

I'll certainly respect your view. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my original post... Again, and especially with so many downloads, I can absolutely understand that the need for making a living drives one into this decision. After all, not everyone is lucky enough to be able to spend so much time as you probably do without any (financial) compensation at all.

I would just have phrased the entire thing differently - instead of "selling a component" (this is how I understood your announcement when reading it initially), I would have pointed out that you are "selling a service" around the software. To me, that makes a difference - in the first interpretation, I really wondered if you aren't getting the benefits of other people's work (those who invented ExtCal in the first place). But in the context of an ongoing service, I think you're making a perfectly valid argument.

So thank you very much for the clarification; I do appreciate it.

Kind regards,

  Christian.

[V-man]

I see your point with the announcement sounding like 'selling software'. I'll try to make that more clear next time. Cheers.

[Mattias1968]

Goodness what did I start?!?! My intention was not to slam you guys really. I was more so just trying to find out if I was clicking the wrong area.

I run a high school team web site, zero budget, so as someone stated, any amount is above and beyond what I want to spend, BUT, that is in no way meant to be a put down to this or any product and again was not my intention for my initial post. I'll just keep looking around for a calendar program and if I can't find one, well, such is life.

Thanks for what you do!

[V-man]

O, i didn't take it as a slam, sorry if you got that impression. I was glad you started the thread

[Philip Roy]

Well I'm a former donator...for functionality I didn't need in the end...as I moved to JCal Pro without migrating existing dates. I have no problems with calling it wasted money well spent...if you get what I mean 

I have no probs with a fee, but I would perhaps like to see it more as an annual fee maybe...a bit like JCE editor?

I'm kinda unsure of what will happen if there's a 1.5.4 version...then 1.5.5. version to fix a bug introduced in 1.5.4 etc etc? I'd much raher come here to download JCal, but not if each revision download costs $5?! Sorry...I couldn't quite see how it might work?

Phil

[V-man]

There is an annual fee available, it's $25.

[Philip Roy]

Oh...OK..cool...I looked but didn't see that 

[jmc]

The reason the source code was published is that this must be readily available, whether or not you are charging a distribution fee. Since the code isn't available here now as a freely accessibly download, we must provide it elsewhere as per the terms of the GPL.

I've gotta confess, that (my red highlighting) is not how I understood the GPL restrictions to operate. Here are (the basics) of what I thought the rules were:
1. As it is a GPL package, you are required "on demand" to supply the source code to your "distributees" (i.e. to any of your "customers", not to just anyone who damn well wants a copy!).
2. You are not allowed to charge for the code itself, but charging for distribution/support etc is allowed, (whether that is done by download or otherwise is immaterial).
3. Bearing in mind the 2 above... no one (who is not a "distributee") has ANY right to demand access to your code, in ANY circumstances.
So... what I don't understand is - why allow SVN??? Who says it is necessary??? I certainly would not do so, unless someone could unequivocally show that it was clearly stated in the GPL (and I don't think it is!).
John Mc

[V-man]

There is a lot of emotion regarding the GPL and Joomla at the moment. I wanted to go a little overboard in case people thought i was trying to break the license.

[mangoman]

V-man and members of the Joomla community:

Thanks for your ongoing, committed and positive support of the development & distribution of JCal Pro - a worthwhile contribution to the functionality of my and many other sites. In addition to its ease of use, utility and functionality, it provides exceptional value and style to each and every site where I have used it. IMHO, the fee for distribution and future work on this extension is justified and fair.

Regards,
John Rozzo
----
Mango Digital :: www.mangodigital.com
Growing Communities™

[spdracr713]

You should consider lettings businesses advertise on your site - that's where the $$ is.  nobody will pay for something that used to be free.
Your hit count is more than enough to attract businesses.