Give it back to Lutz !

• 
  Unfortunately, Lutz didn't want to continue developing it, which is why RedGate got it in the first place:
  http://blog.lutzroeder.com/2008/08/future-of-net-reflector.html

  RichardD March 29, 2011 07:40

  - 0 +
• 
  And RedGate claimed it would continue to offer Reflector to the community for FREE Downloading per the terms between RedGate and Lutz.
  
  http://blog.lutzroeder.com/2008/08/futu ... ector.html
  Lutz Roeder:
  "... Red Gate will continue to provide the free community version and is looking for your feedback and ideas for future versions."
  
  
  
  http://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/opin ... eflector-/
  James Moore is general manager of .NET Developer Tools at Red Gate:
  "... The first thing we are doing is continuing to offer the software to the community for free downloading. "

  zebula8 March 29, 2011 09:36

  - 0 +
• 
  Ah, but there's a difference between "continue to do something" and "do something forever". I might say, "I'll continue to drink beer", but when the beer runs out (or I pass out), I'll stop.
  
  Unfortunately for us, RedGate's beer ran out, so they stopped giving Reflector away. I don't think we can argue that they should be required to continue giving it away forever. However, I still think they were wrong to take v6 away and try to force everyone to upgrade.

  RichardD March 29, 2011 09:51

  - 0 +
• 
  My comments in bold:
  
  Ah, but there's a difference between "continue to do something" and "do something forever". I might say, "I'll continue to drink beer", but when the beer runs out (or I pass out), I'll stop.
  Nice analogy about the beer. However, beer and software are two different beasts. Software should continue to work if well written; and well, beer should run out if well brewed.
  
  
  Unfortunately for us, RedGate's beer ran out, so they stopped giving Reflector away. I don't think we can argue that they should be required to continue giving it away forever. However, I still think they were wrong to take v6 away and try to force everyone to upgrade.
  My argument is that they should be giving away the v6 to the community and plod ahead with newer versions that require payment. I tend to think, and this is only a guess, that v7 is only a couple of bells and whistles on top of v6. I could be wrong but that's how most software is written.

  zebula8 March 29, 2011 21:32

  - 0 +
• 

  zebula8 wrote:

  My argument is that they should be giving away the v6 to the community and plod ahead with newer versions that require payment.

  
  Then we'll have to agree to agree - that's my argument as well.
  
  But that doesn't imply that anyone needs to maintain v6; if it works for our requirements, we should be able to continue using it as-is.

  RichardD March 30, 2011 07:45

  - 0 +
• 
  Agree.
  
  The self-deletion of the "free version" is way out of line.
  
  I have lost all respect for Redgate as a result.

  GreedyRedgate March 31, 2011 13:16

  - 0 +
• 
  I have to agree with zebula8!!!
  
  You MUST provide a free version, even if it is given 'as-is' and does not have any support or maintenance. No problem if it is version 4, 5 or 6!
  
  No problem if it does not have Visual Studio integration. I'm quite sure the .NET community will not care about it. The community cares about the authoritarian decision to put such useful tool only to be available by paying!
  
  That should be considered a crime!
  
  I'm sad. I'm quite sure Lutz Roeder didn't wish to have his tool be rapped like this!
  
  GIVE IT BACK to the COMMUNITY!

  rliberoff April 06, 2011 06:41

  - 0 +

Add comment

Please sign in to leave a comment.