In as much as renting applies to this kind of thing in general, it is - in that you're renting (paying for a fixed period) rather than buying the ability to make closed-source products.jacque wrote:While it isn't the more traditional method of licensing, it isn't really "renting" either.
Software pricing as rental or 'club membership' fees is a bit of a touchstone at the moment, and it's never been something I've much liked. I understand what the realities are regarding what someone gets with a commercial LC licence and what they still have after the 12 months is up, but I'd like to point out that it's the sense of a clock ticking that's making some people a little uncomfortable. As you say, it isn't the more traditional model, so it's inevitable that it's going to raise at least some eyebrows.
You mentioned "if no one purchases the product regularly". That was very close to what I was pondering: what IS the likely tradeoff between (1) requiring annual fees and possibly not getting as many takers and (2) requiring proper upgrade fees for new LC builds but leaving versions as they are and – perhaps – getting more buyers? To my mind it's the big question in this thread. I won't pretend to know, but the academic in me is honour-bound to point it out.
This is peanut gallery stuff and the seriousness of all this talk here should be – and probably is – taken as such by the RunRev folks.
But I hope it's also something that they think about from time to time.