View Single Post
Old 19 April 2017, 09:51   #88
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Zetr0 View Post
2 & 3:
Hmmm I am unsure of this my friend, because that places the payment of the product squarely to the consumer and P96 2.x essentially free to the consumer at the moment. It would require time and investment to bring it up to a version with additional features worth paying for.
Indeed it would, and the commercial model isn't totally sound if
a) Picasso96 was the main source of income for the owners
b) said owners were to try to revoke the old P96 distribution agreements

Originally Posted by Zetr0
My line of thinking is that commercial software that use P96 will be charged a license to use it in the future. I am curious to know about how this might effect non commercial software such as demo's / free to play games
Well, demos and free to play games that use a public API can't be charged by anyone. The API for programs is well-documented, freely published and is basically a copy of CyberGraphX.

What wasn't public until now was the driver SDK, which means that non-licenced drivers such as the Elbox ones were based on reverse engineering, and one reason why work on Picasso96 by its original authors was stopped.

Now that the driver SDK (or something analogous) is to be published, and the current Picasso96 version still is available, this means that you or I may make a card and an accompanying driver without paying anything. Not that it would look like a nice thing to do, but possible and most likely legal – it's doubtful that even the original P96 authors had a case against Elbox since reverse engineering by itself isn't illegal.

One could add that each Vampire sold contains a payment to Cloanto for the included Kickstart (even though the buyer already owns a Kickstart), so paying a licence fee for P96 wouldn't come off as new or odd.

Originally Posted by Zetr0
Come on buddy, this is quite a combative statement - issuing a fellow member with only three options that you deem is disingenuous at best my friend. Of course there are other things that could be done if you don't like the status quo and would like to change - telling them to "shut up" is some what flame baiting and troll-ish.
I gave him the choice to either be constructive or keep his thoughts to himself. You have posted valid concerns regarding the facts we have and those we have not. WXR has repeatedly posted his private thoughts about how he would have handled this, or why someone else's actions aren't acceptable according to his morals. Not only once, but on several occasions in this thread as well as starting several other threads on the same topic (which is his full right to do), thereby derailing a thread which could, perhaps, be about the realities of Picasso96. But if wRX is going to tell others what to do with software they've paid real money for, he's got to handle others telling him what to do with his money and time as well.

Originally Posted by wXR View Post
It is my intention to buy Picasso96 in order to release it under the GPL. I don't want anyone to have to pay even a single cent in license fees to use it or modify it. If you also would like to see that reality, please encourage Jens to discuss it with me.
How far along were you in your negotiations with Abt and Kneer when Individual and Hyperion outbid you? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy it directly from them in 2004, 2007, 2009 or 2015 instead of buying it from someone who's just paid money for it and therefore must have business needs for Picasso96? They won't sell it any cheaper.

Last edited by idrougge; 19 April 2017 at 09:58.
idrougge is offline  
Page generated in 0.05321 seconds with 11 queries