Reaper -> Donationware?

AbstractDissonance · 07-02-2014, 10:15 AM

Whats the likelihood that reaper could be donationware? It essentially is now, but what if the reaper source code was put up on github with anyone able to contribute to its development?

Would/Could this propel reaper past all other DAWs by leveraging the masses?

Kundalinguist · 07-02-2014, 10:31 AM

I've always felt it should be free, PLUS, by signing up to use it, the company sends you a $10 signing bonus as a new user. I think this would put it above all the other DAWS.

Nice try though.

I wish you the best of luck in making at least one person angry today.

Xenakios · 07-02-2014, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbstractDissonance

what if the reaper source code was put up on github with anyone able to contribute to its development?

The available pool of programmers who would be capable of working effectively on the Reaper source code is very small. And those people are likely already working for other companies or their own products.

Ollie · 07-02-2014, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kundalinguist

I've always felt it should be free, PLUS, by signing up to use it, the company sends you a $10 signing bonus as a new user. I think this would put it above all the other DAWS.

Nice try though.

I wish you the best of luck in making at least one person angry today.

Well you made at least one person LOL today.

Kundalinguist · 07-02-2014, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenakios

The available pool of programmers who would be capable of working effectively on the Reaper source code is very small. And those people are likely already working for other companies or their own products.

Hey, isn't that what I said? :P

TimOBrien · 07-02-2014, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbstractDissonance

....what if the reaper source code was put up on github with anyone able to contribute to its development?

...and what if some hack programmers put out versions that caused problems, either through their own lack of skills or deliberately?
Giving a product a bad name could kill it completely.

vitalker · 07-02-2014, 11:26 AM

Reaper's price should be this way:you donate more(the same amount of money) than 60/225$ and that's all!

fladd · 07-02-2014, 01:09 PM

I always find it absolutely hilarious when people who obviously do not understand how open source projects work still feel the need to comment on open source software development. So please keep them comments coming! :-)

fladd · 07-02-2014, 01:34 PM

Sorry, I get easily annoyed by these things.

But let me be a bit more constructive:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbstractDissonance

Whats the likelihood that reaper could be donationware? It essentially is now, but what if the reaper source code was put up on github with anyone able to contribute to its development?

Would/Could this propel reaper past all other DAWs by leveraging the masses?

You seem to be confuse donation ware with open source software, I'm afraid. Those are, however, entirely orthogonal concepts (although they indeed do occur quite often in symphony). Donationware is a pricing policy, while open source refers to a situation where people have access to the source programming code the software is built from. You can make closed source software and release it as donation ware, and you can also make open source software that people have to pay for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenakios

The available pool of programmers who would be capable of working effectively on the Reaper source code is very small. And those people are likely already working for other companies or their own products.

You just effectively said that open source software doesn't make sense because there aren't enough programmers that have the resources (capability, effectiveness and time). I, however, think there are plenty of real-life examples that show quite the opposite: Excellent software made by very capable programmers that are perfectly willing to put time and effort into these projects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimOBrien

...and what if some hack programmers put out versions that caused problems, either through their own lack of skills or deliberately?
Giving a product a bad name could kill it completely.

You seem to be under the impression that an open source project means that everyone has access to modify the code base that is actually used (compiled) for official releases of that software. This is of course not how an open source project works, for the very obvious reasons you just stated your self: It would be a total disaster. Open source means that the source code is made freely available for other people to copy and modify for themselves (or even create forks that can be made available publicly again). You do not get access to modify the original codebase, though. If you want to contribute to an open source project, then you will copy the code, make your modification (bug fix or new feature) and then send these modifications to the project leader (or whoever is responsible for this task) to be reviewed. After a critical review it will be decided whether your code will make it into the official code base. In short, open source does not mean that there is complete anarchy. If the review is, for whatever reasons, not happening, or not done properly, then indeed bad things can happen (see the OpenSSL heart bleed bug for a recent example).

I hope this longer explanation makes up for my rather rude earlier answer (for which I would like to apologise).

bluzkat · 07-02-2014, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fladd

I always find it absolutely hilarious when people who obviously do not understand how open source projects work still feel the need to comment on open source software development. So please keep them comments coming! :-)

Just so you know, Reaper isn't open source.

Kundalinguist · 07-02-2014, 08:56 PM

So it's agreed then — we're going donationware with Reaper? Okay, someone tell Justin our plans. I'll think he'll be quite happy with this new direction in company strategy.

Speaking of which, can we also rename the company "Pussos"? Just a personal preference.

fladd · 07-03-2014, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluzkat

Just so you know, Reaper isn't open source.

Of course it's not. Who said it is?

AbstractDissonance · 07-04-2014, 03:12 PM

Wow, what a bunch of morons. Instead of actually thinking about it all you can do is contribute your own personal BS that contributes nothing to the discussion. Thanks for trying to derail a legitimate discussion with your spin.

Available programmers? Tens of thousands. Look at most open source projects... that have many people that help out. Maybe only a few that are significant contributors but if it's open source then that will bring in more people. The reason I love reaper is because of it's scripting.

Hence, your argument about not enough programmers = fail.

Donationware != open source: BS. Maybe two different things but most open source projects are hosted by someone and they ask for donations. Fail!

Reaper is already cheap: Fail. Yes it is, I believe Justin is a multimillionaire if I'm not mistaken. He doesn't need the money. If it does, then obviously this discussion is moot.

I'm not trying to take money out of anyone's pocket. It's your own pathetic attempt to derail the discussion.

Unlike all you fuckers, I actually want reaper to be the best it can. By allowing people on the outside to contribute you get way more shit. Look at all the reaper skins. Would that shit happen if reaper prevented people from contributing? I don't think so. Hence that is enough to prove that all your arguments are failures.

The only question is, does Justin have any desire to detail with making it open source and/or need the money.

You guys act like there are no pro's... only cons. But you guys are the con(artists). You have no real arguments so you result in trying to detail the discussion.

Go ahead, continue with your worthless retorts you pathetic losers.