Subject: Re: LispWorks status From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/11/04 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3150745386625517@naggum.no> * Fernando D. Mato Mira | Forget about buyout if you're starting a company with your own money. | Even something as low as $25000 is a no-no. Why should they be on | charity? They already charge more than what C++ vendors do. royalty is all about making application and system vendor work together, and as long as that is the core principle, people usually find ways to work together to mutual benefit. people who do not understand this, don't want the vendors to succeed, or are short-sighted enough to think only about themselves, would, however, be likely to interpret royalty as a means of screwing the application vendor. in my view, people who think only about themselves in any business relationship do not deserve to have anybody else think about them, so vendors who ignore people who present the case that they don't want to work together are justified in doing so. I seriously wonder why people think in terms that implies system vendor working against application vendor. even if you think that people are _that_ braindamaged, you have an obligation towards others to ask them whether they see the world differently and have made decisions that you might understand if you knew about them. people who do stuff to make money are generally acutely aware of a number of issues that people who are mainly in the business of not paying for anything never think about, and I personally find it incredibly insulting to have one of those latter people come tell me what to do with money that isn't even theirs to make or waste in the first place. in other words: you may give away your own work at will, but just SHUT UP about the work of others. | Royalties are only justifiable when embedding a compiler ... opinion noted. #:Erik