Is this really a commercial license? Check the license text:
"You may, free of charge, download and use the SDK to develop a modified Valve game running on the Half-Life engine. You may distribute your modified Valve game in source and object code form, but only for free."
Sure, you can't make commercial products out of it, but you are allowed to re-distribute any modifications for free. This can be used by people who want to make free, open source games, for example.
Yes, but if a license isn't open source as defined by OSD, it doesn't mean that it is automatically commercial. My claim is just that the additional restrictions imposed by Valve push the license into some gray area, between OS and commercial.
"Commercial" is commonly used to mean "not Open Source" or "not Free Software", and in that usage not being Open Source does mean that it is "commercial".
Properly speaking, "commercial" is an orthogonal concern to "Open Source" -- if software is sold by a merchant under a license, that license is commercial, whether or not the license is also an Open Source license.
You seem to want to create a new use of "commercial" where it on a continuum with "Open Source" but not merely the negation of "Open Source", such that there would be "Commercial" and then some poorly specified "gray area" and then "Open Source". I'm not sure that this is either a particularly good use of the term "commercial", nor a particularly useful concept regardless of the terminology. Non-Open Source or non-Free licenses always permit you to do something with the software (that's why they are "licenses").
Your definition (in the first line) would imply that closed-source freeware is commercial, I don't agree with that. I do agree that commercial is orthogonal to open source.
So my original point about the license not being properly commercial stands. I do agree with you that it is not really proper to claim that there is a spectrum between commercial and open source.
dragonwriter's not defining anything in his first line, he's pointing out a common misconception.
In reality, the 'opposite' of Open Source is proprietary. There is commercial Open Source (Red Hat), and proprietary software with source code available (Unreal SDK).
I do not understand ... please, can you elaborate what is the connection between GEB (which I presume is 'Gödel, Escher, Bach') and for example the "Learn you a Haskell" book ? They are both good books, but I do not think that books about programming languages are suitable alternatives to GEB.
Anki is wonderful; I've been using it for a while. One nice feature of Anki is that it can sync between the web, desktop and mobile versions of the app.
I stopped using it because I couldn't summon the time/willpower to work at it every day. When you leave a deck for more than a day, the work starts to accumulate like crazy and it takes much more effort to catch up.
I've set up a cron job to automatically open the app at 7 in the morning every day (and to minimise all other apps would be nice but I can't find anything to do it). I'll also set up the same functionality on my iPhone (jailbroken devices can do this with Activator).
Your reply did make me take another crack at it and I got it to work. The script if anyone is interested: http://pastebin.com/pC9VTzjv. It does do some specific-to-me things to close apps I usually have open that did not want to minimise.
It's important to remember that you don't have to review all your "due" cards at once. Just open it up and do one card per deck. Maybe you'll do more as you get going or if the next card after the first is easy. It accumulates, but over time as you actually memorize things you'll whittle the due set down as every card starts becoming "due" months into the future.
I would like to try Anki on iOS but the developer has decided to offer it for a price of £17.50. Considering the web version is free and the desktop version is open source, I'm not sure what's motivated this decision, and it leaves a bad taste. I'm all for developers being paid for their time, but considering this is an app of most use to students (of which I am one) I can say for sure that I'm never going to be able to pay that much for it...
I'm the other developer of AnkiMobile along with Damien Elmes, creator of Anki.
The iOS app is the sole source of income for Damien, who develops, hosts and supports the entire Anki ecosystem for free. At some point a few years ago, Anki was taking up so much of his time that he had to decide whether to quit his job or stop developing it. He chose to quit his job and make a paid iOS app.
I think £17.50 is a reasonable price for such a complex app. Many people who own it use it for over an hour a day. If you think of it as less than ten cups of coffee, and consider that you would pay much more for a textbook, I think it's a good value investment for the educational return you get.
If you really really cannot afford £17.50, you could always join the beta program next time there's a call for testers on the user group, or you can use the web version on your phone.
I'm someone who has been using Anki for over a year now and I'd like to say that the value that I've gotten from Anki is equivalent to the value I'd normally need to pay $1000+ for with traditional modes of learning (books, courses, etc.). Even at $200 Anki would be a steal.
The problem with expensive apps (just very generally speaking) is that Apple's App Store doesn't currently have a way to trial them. Even if an app is worth $200, there's no way to find that out beforehand. This is made worse by an awkward refund process and presumably a cost to the developer too with refunds.
With regards to how you arrive at the $200 figure: for you, Anki is competing against "$1000+ for with traditional modes of learning", and so you feel it's worth up to $200. Well, it's also possible to frame it the opposite way, because for me Anki is competing against traditional (free) libraries and a $1 stack of flashcards, in which case it seems way overpriced to me. So I don't think that's a compelling argument either way.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Ultimately, you can (of course) set whatever price you like, as is your right. I don't expect to change your mind on this. I don't necessarily think the complexity argument is a good one though. I have plenty of apps that are arguably more 'complex' but priced more cheaply, and presumably sell more as a result of being cheaper.
Could yourself and Damien not make an equal amount of money from the iOS port by having a cheaper app and making up for it in volume? I appreciate support costs do not scale trivially in a case like that, but is that something you've thought about or explored? If the price is a gesture against the app store's 'race to the bottom', then that's admirable, but this just seems like too far – especially considering the audience for your app (in my opinion).
With regards to:
> If you really really cannot afford £17.50 ...
That could be fine for me, reading your comment, but not for most of the people priced out of the app. I personally just switched to a lower priced app, like this one: http://apps.chbeer.de/ivocabulary/ (full unlock is £3, and it has a very fine legacy having been derived from the ProVoc codebase, I believe)
Regardless, whether it's intended that way or not (and I suspect not), it feels like I'm being punished for using an Apple product because the price of your iOS app is so different from every other platform, and that isn't a nice feeling.
Damien did experiment with having a much lower priced app. What happened was that a lot more people bought it just by browsing the app store for a flashcard app, then got confused by how complex it is, then left negative reviews. The ratings plummeted. The current price is a result of extensive experimentation with price and user base.
We discussed the complexity issue with existing Anki users and they don't fid it complex - but people who aren't already using Anki do. By setting the price higher, volume of sales is sacrificed in preference of selling to people who understand what they are buying.
If people want to buy the cheaper app, that's OK. Some of them are great apps (nowhere near Anki imho, but I'm biased :). We hope that people who derive real value from using Anki every day will understand that the price is a way for them to support the whole Anki ecosystem.
I agree that the price is a 'hump' that many people won't get over. But if the tool is useful, claiming it's too pricey for students can't be right. That price is less than your typical textbook.
Sure, you're comparing the price to free on desktop, but I suspect you're also somewhat comparing it to typical app store prices. We've been educated that software for our mobile devices costs a nominal fee.
It's this idea that really bothers me, I think. I don't know if the developer subscribes to this idea or not, but whenever I see an iOS app priced way differently to it's counterparts on other platforms I suspect it's either motivated by this idea or otherwise some principled stance against Apple.
In either case, it isn't nice as an individual to be singled out as a target for extra cash because of the platform you run on. Just because I use an iPhone doesn't mean I have more money than my peers (and in fact probably means I have less!). Even if that were true on aggregate, I still find it unpleasant, simply because there will be many exceptions.
Just because I use an iPhone doesn't mean I have more money than my peers (and in fact probably means I have less!).
Assuming the iPhone is yours, sure it does; at least, more money than a student who can't afford £17 for a learning tool. The iPhone itself is an asset that is worth money.
For my own projects, I have found make's alternatives (eg. scons) to be a much superior choice. Make is just too complex for what it is intended to do (at least as used with autoconf, etc.).
