Loading Profile...
licence type need to be more definetive
licence type need to be border approach . few apps can be part of free and part of paid version . like Zoho.com free for predefined no. user is group and after that every new user in paid version , Like business.zoho.com a collaboration web apps is freefor up to ten user , from 11th user it cost few US$ . better add a check mark
I’m happy
4
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The company thinks this is not a problem.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?I see the case with multiple license-types for webapps in particular. However we feel it's too much to include and update all the possible licenses with all the possible limitations.
Maybe it's clearer to mark it as 'demo' and add a limitation like 'free up to 10 users' ?1 Comment
Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
You don't need all possible types - just the main types and a Comment box for any special terms and a URL to point people too. Please reconsider. If you want developers to use wakoopa to trace usage, etc. this is a very serious point. Especially the difference between Freeware and Free Software - see wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware -
Inappropriate?There are too few choices to begin with. License forms like careware, donationware and postcardware cannot be entered. And "demo" is a bad choice to include fully-functional trial versions - normally "demo" means the exact opposite: something you can "look at" but not actually use - worse even than crippleware which at least lets you do "something" while you haven't paid yet.
Such distinctions matter to people, especially Open Source and Shareware advocates. "Demo" is a piece of software that does not work (not a license type). Shareware is a distribution form. Open Source is a type of license that gives the user the right to the source code and the right to change it. Commercial means that something costs money - but that something can very well be shareware or be or contain Open Source. Bundled is again a distribution format (how you can acquire it) but doesn't say anything about license at all.
The list is a mishmash of different things, and the explanation doesn't really help to make a choice.
But the biggest problem is that you have to choose one option when often several are available, and/or several are applicable at the same time. The need is not to sum up all different limitations or pricing schemes, but to be able to indicate that there is a choice between free and a paid-for license. Or that a commercial license is Open Source (think of MySQL for instance which is Open Source and has commercial licenses). And so on.
Distribution (how you can get your hands on it), license (what you are allowed to do with it) and pricing (what it may cost and how you can pay) are three different and independent things.
The current "License type" item mixes them all up. This is a problem. A big one. The choices one is forced to make often lead to a false result, with no way to indicate the real situation.
The best solution would be to split this item into three separate items (or maybe two: is distribution form really important?), and allow multi-select on each of them as well (software and services may have different license types, and different pricing forms - including freeware - as well).
I’m often frustrated I cannot indicate the real license type etc.
-
Inappropriate?I agree totally. If you want to encourage developers this is a VERY important issue.
There are different types - Open Source, Freeware for any use, Freeware for Private use, Shareware, Retail, Volume Licence, etc. You only have a few categories. You could also have a link to the Terms and Conditions page for the software.
EMPLOYEE
