🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2034@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. 
Vita) writes:

> Well, if the fee is so <largely symbolic>, why not just get rid of it?

I don't think it is purely symbolic. There is some legal reasons 
behind it.

> development products.  But royalty fees on compilers are absolutely
> inexcusable.  I mean, I've already paid for the product once; why

I don't know the Lisp environment, but there are no royalties for using 
MPW compilers.  Once you start shipping some of Apple's code (as with 
MacApp), then there are licensing fees.  I would guess that shipping a 
product with Macintosh Lisp results in shipping a significant amount of 
Apple's code, hence the licensing fee.

Also, remember this is a flat fee, not a per copy fee.

> this swell new technology, right?  Wrong; instead they charge a
> $100/yr royalty fee for developing with MacApp.  Why?  I don't have to
> pay $100/yr to make Toolbox calls.  Why should I have to pay $100/yr
> to use MacApp?  

You don't distribute the Toolbox code with your application.  You do 
distribute the MacApp code.

You don't have to pay any fee unless you distribute an application.  The 
$100 fee is for commercial applications.  Presumably if you sell 
applications for a living you can afford a licensing fee.  If you produce 
non-profit applications than the licensing fee is much smaller (the last I 
heard it was $10).  We made this change to the licensing agreement after 
complaints from users.

> Apple should not be running their development services as a profit
> center.  It's quite apparent that they are doing just that (the recent

If you think these licensing fees make a profit, then you are mistaken.

Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist

Internet: lsr@Apple.com   UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr
AppleLink: Rosenstein1