4 ms·

the new "accepted answer" by jeff is a very very poor statement and makes me to never touch Titanium ever. the statement didn't answer any part of the question

by franze 14y ago

the new "accepted answer" by jeff is a very very poor statement and makes me to never touch Titanium ever. the statement didn't answer any part of the question at all, and does nothing to clarify the situation. marketing speach par exellence. if they debug their code the same way they debug their business processes than titanium would be the windows vista of mobile development frameworks.

posabsolute 14y ago
Exactly, It really does not tell me if I can use it to do freelance contract, which is the base of the question...
mikl 14y ago
Yeah, it's a complete non-answer. It does not explain at all what might cause AppC to contact clients and demand license agreements.
prpatel 14y ago
This is a quote from Jeff's response: "To be crystal clear here, our intentions are that we will not charge for development that happens under the “App Explore” product (i.e., the free version). Usage of the Appcelerator platform (Titanium Mobile SDK, Titanium Studio, Analytics and Cloud Services) at this level is permitted for all applications, both commercial and free, with no financial obligation to Appcelerator." Again, APL code on Github. APL is a permissive and "biz friendly" license as we all know.
- batista 14y ago
  Yes, but how do you explain the contacting the developer (and the client)?
- pjzedalis 14y ago
  Appcelerator is open source for the sake of being considered open source. They certainly are not in business to promote businesses using their open source for free.
ComputerGuru 14y ago
Their "answer" does not even say whether or not they contacted the client and had the app pulled and if so, under what pretense. BS.
Malcx 14y ago
I agree, the answer was changed after I accepted it, which was an initial response saying they would respond shortly. If we have broken any licensing terms, then I would like to have been contacted, and Appcelerator to tell us and exactly what we were doing wrong, so that we can resolve it. Unfortunately this response doesn't address any of my problems - it's the usual "we care and we are growing" spiel. I empathise to some extent as I know it's hard to build a technical business, but this didn't address the trust issues, and I'm still no clearer about whether Monday morning we're still expected to license from them? Worst of all for me, I now have a damaged relationship with a not particularly technical client who sadly is likely to associate "open source" with "legal problems".
dansingerman 14y ago
I'm a user of Titanium. Or rather, I was. This incident, and their response, is a complete dealbreaker.
jimbokun 14y ago
It is a confusing, unclear and opaque apology for their confusing, unclear and opaque licensing policies. I cannot deduce anything about what their true licensing policies might be from those 9 paragraphs.

by franze 14y ago

posabsolute 14y ago

Exactly, It really does not tell me if I can use it to do freelance contract, which is the base of the question...

mikl 14y ago

Yeah, it's a complete non-answer. It does not explain at all what might cause AppC to contact clients and demand license agreements.

prpatel 14y ago

This is a quote from Jeff's response: "To be crystal clear here, our intentions are that we will not charge for development that happens under the “App Explore” product (i.e., the free version). Usage of the Appcelerator platform (Titanium Mobile SDK, Titanium Studio, Analytics and Cloud Services) at this level is permitted for all applications, both commercial and free, with no financial obligation to Appcelerator." Again, APL code on Github. APL is a permissive and "biz friendly" license as we all know.

batista 14y ago
Yes, but how do you explain the contacting the developer (and the client)?
pjzedalis 14y ago
Appcelerator is open source for the sake of being considered open source. They certainly are not in business to promote businesses using their open source for free.

ComputerGuru 14y ago

Their "answer" does not even say whether or not they contacted the client and had the app pulled and if so, under what pretense. BS.

Malcx 14y ago

I agree, the answer was changed after I accepted it, which was an initial response saying they would respond shortly. If we have broken any licensing terms, then I would like to have been contacted, and Appcelerator to tell us and exactly what we were doing wrong, so that we can resolve it. Unfortunately this response doesn't address any of my problems - it's the usual "we care and we are growing" spiel. I empathise to some extent as I know it's hard to build a technical business, but this didn't address the trust issues, and I'm still no clearer about whether Monday morning we're still expected to license from them? Worst of all for me, I now have a damaged relationship with a not particularly technical client who sadly is likely to associate "open source" with "legal problems".

dansingerman 14y ago

I'm a user of Titanium. Or rather, I was. This incident, and their response, is a complete dealbreaker.

jimbokun 14y ago

It is a confusing, unclear and opaque apology for their confusing, unclear and opaque licensing policies. I cannot deduce anything about what their true licensing policies might be from those 9 paragraphs.