Activity overview
Latest activity by mb
MulleDK19 wrote:
Also, to actually break Cecil's license, .NET Reflector would have to actually use Cecil.
Hmm - interesting (a little bit anyway). Reflector had the Cecil license file in its installation. I guess I just assumed that meant it used Cecil. In any case, I don't have a Reflector install at the moment, so I can't recheck (not that it really matters). / comments
MulleDK19 wrote:
Also, to actually break Cecil's license, .NET Reflector would have to actually use Cecil.
Hmm - interesting (a little bit anyway). Reflector had the Cecil license file in its ...
I don't have a copy of Reflector anymore, but my recollection is that the Cecil copyright/notice is part of the Reflector installation. That's all that the license requires.
From Cecil's FAQ:
Can I use Cecil is my closed source proprietary application?
Short answer: yes. You can read Cecil’s License.
Cecil's license page says:
The MIT/X11 is a permissive license, which is GPL compatible, and allows usage within proprietary software as long as this license is distributed along with the software.
/ comments
I don't have a copy of Reflector anymore, but my recollection is that the Cecil copyright/notice is part of the Reflector installation. That's all that the license requires.
From Cecil's FAQ:
Can ...
Could you be more explicit about what the violations are? / comments
Could you be more explicit about what the violations are?
JDelekto wrote:
I believe they did not lie and had intented to whole-heartedly continue to offer a free product to the community. However, the product did not "pay for itself" as they had expected and for them to support it, it would cost money.
There was no lie to the community and they have been pretty up front about their new intentions.
I believe this as well.
I also believe that RedGate should have probably handled this transition to a paid model differently and (perhaps paradoxically) that the vociferous complaints are out of proportion to the amount of damage.
Of course I'd prefer that a final, non-timebombed free release be made. And I'm not particularly happy that if I want to continue using Reflector, I'll have to pay. On the other hand, $35 for an "essential tool" isn't too much.
However, most people seem to be indicate that it's the broken promise or breach of trust that's causing the venom in the negative feedback. Sure it's not great hearing that something you thought was promised as free forever won't turn out to be. But on the scale of broken promises (and there is a scale - one broken promise isn't necessarily as bad as another), I think that being stood up for a date would rate more painful than no longer being able to use this tool for free. / comments
JDelekto wrote:
I believe they did not lie and had intented to whole-heartedly continue to offer a free product to the community. However, the product did not "pay for itself" as they had expec...
RichardD wrote:
Yep - they're already starting to delete comments they don't like.
Are they deleting negative comments in general, or just comments that have abusive language? / comments
RichardD wrote:
Yep - they're already starting to delete comments they don't like.
Are they deleting negative comments in general, or just comments that have abusive language?
AvonWyss wrote:
There is a difference between excluding warranties and willful sabotage of the software to render it useless
I'm not sure "willful sabotage" applies here since the timebomb is a part of the original download and it just makes their software stop functioning - no data is lost. Maybe there could be some liability if the timebomb isn't properly disclosed up front - I dunno, but I could maybe see that. However, I think this is pretty unlikely since all that happens to the damaged party is that they're left in the same situation as if they had never downloaded the software to begin with.
Again - I'm not saying that what Red Gate has announced is all fine and good. But saying that they've breached anything more than customer confidence or goodwill is probably overstating things.
Anyway, since I think I'm really getting into legal details that I really know nothing about, I'll stop speculating. / comments
AvonWyss wrote:
There is a difference between excluding warranties and willful sabotage of the software to render it useless
I'm not sure "willful sabotage" applies here since the timebomb is ...
AvonWyss wrote:
londoner_86 wrote:
However, no-one is FORCING anyone to pay it.
By timebombing V6 they do, in fact, take away already granted licenses for the use of V6. That is the thing that is being critisized most and called "evil"...
Note that the 'granted' license doesn't provide you with much of anything - in fact it has the standard disclaimer that Red Gate don't promise the software will do anything. Apparently, they're actively following through on that.
So I believe there's at least no legal liability on Red Gate's part. And even if there were some liability applicable - a license might not legally be able to remove a 'fit-for-purpose' expectation, for example - the best that anyone can generally hope for is to get back whatever consideration was given in exchange for the license. That's lawyer talk (even though I'm not a lawyer) for, "at best, you might get your money back".
That said, I agree that timebombing the last free release isn't something I think Red Gate should do - aside from just being a bit mean, it's clearly an epic PR debacle. / comments
AvonWyss wrote:
londoner_86 wrote:
However, no-one is FORCING anyone to pay it.
By timebombing V6 they do, in fact, take away already granted licenses for the use of V6. That is the thing th...