convore.json/groups/feedback/license-of-chats/messages.json

[{"user_id": 18485, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301689902.8672481, "message": "On the FREE issue I can see a model where we can continue to use the service for free and ads are placed on the page or we pay for an ad free experience. Choice is good!", "group_id": 88, "id": 505421}, {"user_id": 27150, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301689431.26875, "message": "you know what would really differentiate convore for me? making all the public chat text have an open CC license. (I don't know what private-chat facilities exist, but those don't have to be CC.) In a related note, _you wrote_ \"is convore really free?\" on your _own_ FAQ page. The currently-posted answer is a total dodge which reads like \"we don't know a good way to pay for our startup, but please go ahead and keep contributing your time to it, since we might be able to extract value from that\" :(", "group_id": 88, "id": 505364}, {"user_id": 13339, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301690016.5456679, "message": "If they gotta make money then they gotta make money, but yeah, I'm a little nervous about how much it might cost. I'd hate to get really into it and get a whole bunch of people on board then find out I can't afford it.  I assume public groups would remain free, but I'm trying to get people in my company into a private group.", "group_id": 88, "id": 505436}, {"user_id": 27150, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301693942.880374, "message": "to be clear, I have no problem with them charging in whatever way they want, and even for that charge to be decided and implemented later. But the FAQ question is written like a politician with something to hide. I felt like the content license issue was related because obviously the UGC is the most valuable thing here, and I'm suspicious of future business plans that involve locking it down further. (Aardvark, which I otherwise really like, has the same issue.)", "group_id": 88, "id": 505960}, {"user_id": 18485, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301696304.837785, "message": "@katylava Hopefully the folks behind convore will realize that those of us who jump in early and help build the site's traffic are not the ones to make a buck off of. Make the bank on those who come later after it's the hip new thing! Maybe they should publish a join date like June 1, 2011 and say those that are members and active in convore by then are grandfathered and will always be FREE members including their groups. This would encourage folks to jump in and quell concerns early adopters may have.", "group_id": 88, "id": 506292}, {"user_id": 18478, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301696458.8618131, "message": "With more tweaking of this community and more control given the users in general and some extra benefits to early adopters I may consider paying a small fee.  I love the interactivity of these forums. Just saying.  Much better than the run of the mill standard variety.", "group_id": 88, "id": 506295}, {"user_id": 18485, "stars": [], "topic_id": 16785, "date_created": 1301697103.8230369, "message": "@MarkLaViolette All true but they need a lot more uptake or this will die on the vine. For example I started a public group http://convore.com/photo and I'm the only one who has posted there. It's a public group! Are there not any photographers that want to chat? I also created \"photos\" with the same result. A public group with a generic name like that should generate some topics. By the way convore should consider a rule whereby generic names for groups must be used for public groups. Otherwise someone could grab a good name like \"Movies\" and put a private group there thus locking away the name.", "group_id": 88, "id": 506346}]