Thanks for all your feedback, guys!
Just to be clear, AGS will NOT be going commercial; the target market for a tool such as AGS is simply too small to make it a profitable business -- which is probably why there is no equivalent commercial product.
Based on the anonymous usage stats, I can tell you that AGS currently has 2260 active users. If AGS went commercial and charged $30, if we work with a generous assumption that 10% of people would buy it, that would bring in $6780. As a lump sum that would be enough to fund development for a few months, but the number of new registrations each month would be nowhere near enough to fund it as a business.
So let's just say, if I went on Dragon's Den and pitched BigBlueCup LTD, there would be only one response -- "I'm out"!!
So, what are we going to do? Well, from your feedback it sounds like people are generally in favour of opening up the source code in some way, so I will prepare a release of the AGS Editor Source Code.
Yes, this sounds good and is probably the license model I will choose.
Just to be clear, AGS will NOT be going commercial; the target market for a tool such as AGS is simply too small to make it a profitable business -- which is probably why there is no equivalent commercial product.
Based on the anonymous usage stats, I can tell you that AGS currently has 2260 active users. If AGS went commercial and charged $30, if we work with a generous assumption that 10% of people would buy it, that would bring in $6780. As a lump sum that would be enough to fund development for a few months, but the number of new registrations each month would be nowhere near enough to fund it as a business.
So let's just say, if I went on Dragon's Den and pitched BigBlueCup LTD, there would be only one response -- "I'm out"!!
So, what are we going to do? Well, from your feedback it sounds like people are generally in favour of opening up the source code in some way, so I will prepare a release of the AGS Editor Source Code.
QuoteAGS as open-development (not open source) - Inform 7 broadly follows this model. It is still, ultimately, under the control of Graham Nelson (and the code for the compiler is closed source), but there are also a team of developers, working on the UIs (which are open source), standard libraries etc. This might be the best compromise concerning Chris's mistrust of open source licenses and loss of control. This would allow the community to be more broadly involved with the project.
Yes, this sounds good and is probably the license model I will choose.