July 7th, 2006
FlickrExport licensing, take three.
It was pointed out to me, both online and off, that my recent statement about FlickrExport licensing was stupid and based on wrong thinking. It is, of course, unfair to ask two people sharing only one computer to purchase two licenses and I’m happy to admit that I was wrong on that point.
What I will do from the date of this post onwards is adopt a similar policy to The Omni Group:
Our software products are usually licensed for a given number of machines or users, whichever is lower. For instance, a single individual with both a laptop and a desktop computer (or, say, a home machine and an office machine) can legally install and use a single license on both machines (though not at the same time). Similarly, a home computer being shared by three family members needs only a single license of the software.
However, the licenses are not “floating” licenses. For instance, a business with twenty users and twenty computers needs to purchase twenty software licenses, even if no more than ten users ever to use the software simultaneously.
So here’s how it works from now on:
| People | Computers | Licenses Required |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 or more | 1 |
| 2 or more | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 5 | 3 |
| 10 | 10 | 10 |
| X | Y | Either X number of licenses or Y, whichever is lower. |
I hope that’s clearer, fairer and more acceptable to everyone. I will personally contact people who made multiple license purchases between July 6th, 2006 and July 7th, 2006 and offer refunds of the additional licenses.
The new licensing arrangements are documented at http://connectedflow.com/flickrexport/licensing/
July 8th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Greetings -
I had been planning to register flickr export, but after having checked your website I think I am changing my mind.
I respect your right to do as you see fit with your product and your code, but since it is such an excellent product that made such a great impression on me – I thought it was only fair to give you my reasons why I have changed my mind…
1) I am uncomfortable seeing OpenSource projects turn closed source. It feels like a bait-and-switch to me. I also much prefer to have access to the source code of the tools that I regularly use.
2) Despite #1, I was impressed enough with the new 2.0 beta that I had planned to register anyway. I may frown on having the code closed, but that is your choice and I still valued the overall product.
3) Checking the final price tonight though, it seems 2x what I’d like to personally pay for an upload tool. An upload tool shouldn’t cost half as much as a year’s subscription to flickr. It may be worth it for a heavy users, but I post only a photo or two a week. $6 seems more reasonable. But – I was still planning to register regardless – maybe for a lite version. Twelve pounds is a lot, but actually I would gladly pay fifteen pounds or maybe even twenty for a combination of XJournal and FlickrExport that would combine illustrated LJ blog posting and uploading to flickr all in one. I wish that product existed.
4) But still – I find myself using flickr more and more, and your tool is well done. So despite my uncomfortableness, I was probably going to still pay. But before I did… I have set several friends and family up with flickr recently – and they are all very light users. But – I was going to simplify their work flow by setting them up with the old free version of export. These users may post once a month, but I’d like to make it easy for them. When I went looking for it tonight – I find that now only the source code is available to version 1.34. The binary can no longer be downloaded. It seems wrong (IMHO) to take the binary down but leave the source up.
Anyway – I am now off looking for other tools – but I wanted to let you know the reason why you lost a customer.
Thanks for the great work, and (honestly) good-luck in the direction you are taking the project. I will indeed still recommend it to my heavy use pro-photographer friends.
– chris dunphy // http://www.radven.net
July 8th, 2006 at 10:25 am
What do you think Omni means when it says, “can legally install and use a single license on both machines (though not at the same time)”?
It’s not all that clear to me. Can they *install* on two machines “at the same time” but not *use* them “at the same time”?
July 8th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
That’s much more reasonable!
But the price is still a bit too steep for me (and I assume a lot of others) to pay, when the old, free version still words ok.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Yeah, I tend to agree. I was trying out the beta of version 2 and as it has now expired I went to see the limitations on v2 final to find that they were more restrictive that version 1.
I went to download version one only to find out that it was version 2 as well. I don’t mean any disrespect at all, and I do love the work that you do, but to my mind it shouldn’t be that you should have to remove the old free version and force people to move up to version two – version two’s benefits should be apparent and justify the price for those that need it. Leave version one for those who just have basic needs, and version two and beyond for those who do need to do a bit more serious time consuming or tedious stuff
On this occasion I was only going to upload 30 photos or so, but there are other occasions when I may uploaded up to 200. I do plan on buying it because I believe the price to justify the time saved on doing some operations (ie, add to group pool), but on this occasion I just wanted to do something simple and found that I had to jump through hoops to do it.
It’s a fine line and I hope that you will consider some of what has been said.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I encourage you guys to simply download the old source code, which is available from ConnectedFlow’s website.
Under the terms of the BSD license, that code is freely available. It’s what I’ve done.
Now, yelling at him for removing the old version is somewhat silly. He’s not obligated to give out the old version, simply the source code.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
jh, you are incorrect.
“He’s not obligated to give out the old version, simply the source code.”
He is, in fact, not obligated to give out anything at all. Neither the BSD nor the GPL license require the software author to do anything; one simply allows anyone he chooses to give the source to, to do with it as they please, while the second (GPL) requires that the person receiving the source code also, in turn, give the source along with any binary versions.
You can release software you’ve written as binary-only, and still license it via GPL; you would in effect be requiring no subsequent distribution.
Look, Mr. Speirs did not bait and switch with regards to FlickrExport. He, for a time, voluntarily shared binary and source copies of a project he had worked on. Some users voluntarily offered beta testing (in that they wrote back w/ suggestions, bug reports, etc). No one was promised anything, and thus no one owed the other anything.
He decided to do some more work, and charge for the results. He has every right. Had he made any promises (”FE will always be free”) it would probably still not have obligated him (it only becomes a contract if he was getting something in an explicit quid-pro-quo for that promise) and morally, he would simply be changing his mind about his future intentions.
He did not disable the old copies (admittedly, he couldn’t). He has harmed no one. He offered one product/service for free (FE 1.x) and is now offering a similar but different product/service for a small fee (FE 2.x).
Buy it, don’t buy it, but please stop complaining about it! You have not been wronged in the slightest. If there was a flaw with the program that caused you not to buy it, buy all means contact him. If the price is too much, perhaps a small note would work, but really you should just walk away. If the idea of profit offends you, and you feel it should be free (beer and speech) then by all means get off your ass and write GNU flickrtool; to complain is simply rude.
Not that this is the appropriate forum, but fanatical dislike for those who have to pay rent and thus need to make a living is one of the reasons I stopped using Linux.
-RS
July 10th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
You misread me, RS.
I have not upgraded to Flickr’s full service, so I do not have a need for FlickrExport. (Yet).
And as the person is the initial provider of the software, he is free to do whatever he wants. I don’t hold any animosity, and encourage him.
My point was to simply point out that he provides the source code for the 1.x product, and that people are free to take that code, redistribute it, and recompile it.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:21 am
I think the main “bait-and-switch” complaint comes from the fact that the download here, which is marked (and even named) as FlickrExport 1.3.4 is in fact, a Flickr Export 2.0 installer.
I think that link shoud be either renamed, removed, or re-linked to the source page, if nothing else.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:06 am
glacial: that was my mistake, intended to avoid links breaking rather than to trick people. I had hoped browsers would be smart enough to recieve the file as “FlickrExport-2.0.dmg”, but I guess not.
I’ve since removed the symlink.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:23 am
1) Why not use Source Forge again to host 1.3.4’s binary?
2) I’ll skip the obvious question of – why use hosting costs as an excuse to start charging money when sites like Source Forge will host it for you?
3) $22 is too much to ask. I won’t pay it. I won’t recommend others to pay it. Lowering the price to half that might be reasonable, but it’s still just a tool. It’s a tiny, tiny tool, that doesn’t do a whole lot.
4) … is still free. I wonder if they’ll make their own iPhoto tool now.
5) Thanks for the tiny tool you provided for a couple of years for free. That was a good thing of you to do.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Tollie, I make no excuses for charging money. I’m not charging because hosting costs are high. I charge money because I believe my development effort has vaue and that there is a market for that value.
I’m glad you enjoyed FlickrExport for free.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:51 am
You didn’t reply to #1, which was my genuine question. I’d really appreciate a reply to it. Also, after re-reading my #3 a few times, it might have seemed a little rude. My apologies.
However, since you did bring up #2, I was only referring back to your comment:
July 11th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Tollie, the answer to your question #1 is that there’s no business case for continued distribution of the 1.3.4 binary. Even if the hosting comes for free, support doesn’t.
The quote “where “enoughâ€? is defined as “pays the hosting billâ€?” was simply intended to illustrate how much of a failure the donations revenue model was.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I’ve been a user of FlickrExport ever since I signed up with Flickr. I’ve enjoyed it immensly and never even tried their home grown OS X tool. I knew you were going to a pay-for model and was ok with that, after all I use the tool frequently and I have no problem paying someone for a good product.
However when I went to register it I found it to be just over $21 USD which to me seemed a tad on the high side since I only pay $25 for Flickr Pro. Maybe if I was using it every day I could justify the price but for the once or twice a month I post photos I’m not sure if I’m willing to pay that.
I also didn’t like the fact that I “may” have to purchace an additional license should a v3 come out. Many of the other small tools I’ve bought grandfather you in for life which I always thought was fair since we aren’t talking about a whole new operating system or suite of desktop tools. Being grandfathered in could justify the higher costs not only to me but other people.
Just my thoughts on the subject and why I may be jumping ship.
July 18th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
$22. I paid it (and the VAT) because my time is worth more than £10 per hour. As soon as the tool has saved me a couple of hours, it will have paid for itself.
Obviously, FlickrExport isn’t the tool for light users of Flickr, just as a bean-to-cup coffee machine would be a daft purchase for someone who drinks maybe a cup of coffee a day. If you don’t believe it’s worth the cost then don’t whinge about it: just use something else.