Comments
Sort by recent activity
wellilein wrote:
My fault: I thought it would expire in March, but it expires on 30th of May and will come up with a message then.
I wonder what would happen if they allow the community to download a current version 6 with the 'forced upgrade' removed. It would probably make the community ecstatic.
I suppose, possibly, they could then turn around an offer a 'free' version 6.9 which offers some 'taste' of what 7.0 has to offer but requires the upgrade. I wonder if that would have quelled all the grieving. / comments
wellilein wrote:
My fault: I thought it would expire in March, but it expires on 30th of May and will come up with a message then.
I wonder what would happen if they allow the community to dow...
Ettery wrote:
Just asking. Maybe someone at RedGate could answer?
My impression was that RedGate took over the tool on condition that they would continue to offer a free version. No doubt they knew it would bring them some profile and traffic in the .NET community. The software and community were already built. Whether you did or not, you should demonstrate your integrity by open-sourcing the code at the point where you took it over. I think it's fair then that you get paid for any additional value you have added... but anything else makes you look downright dishonest.
The source code for Lutz Roeder's Reflector (at least from the versions I have used up until Red-Gate had acquired it) was not "Open Source" and I do not think the Open Source community has any reason or right to strong arm a company into releasing any intellectual property that they have acquired through legal means.
Perhaps you should do what the "Open Source" community did for Blender, collect the money and buy it from the 'bank'. Then, if the 'bank' decides to hand it over, you can bend it, shape it - any way you want it.
Just because a person gives their application away for 'free' out of the goodness of their heart does not mean it is "Open Source" or open season. / comments
Ettery wrote:
Just asking. Maybe someone at RedGate could answer?
My impression was that RedGate took over the tool on condition that they would continue to offer a free version. No doubt they...
The_Assimilator wrote:
Lutz Roeder, a one-man show, released a high-quality tool that he maintained for many years. As soon as he turned it over to your "awesome developers", quality took a dive, and now you have the gall to charge us money for this tool because it allegedly takes a lot to maintain? You REALLY expect anyone to believe this crap?
Well, as I see it, 'quality' of the product did not take a dive at all --in fact, it increase in quality when Red-Gate took it over, for the simple reason that the .NET languages have changed in form.
I can assure you that an older version of Lutz's Reflector would make more "garbledy-gook" out of the C# 3.0 language specification where the compiler used so much "syntactic sugar" it would make its teeth rot.
I'm actually thankful that someone was able to take over the development of reflector so that one could make better sense of reading the code (though still not perfected) much better as the language itself generated new code.
It does take a lot to maintain, sir, because the developers have to understand the nuances of the language, the compiled output and how to translate it back to something readable. In addition, they've been augmenting the product to integrate with Visual Studio and debugging which, by the way, has been quite helpful with 3rd party buggy components.
I happen to appreciate their products.
Cheers. / comments
The_Assimilator wrote:
Lutz Roeder, a one-man show, released a high-quality tool that he maintained for many years. As soon as he turned it over to your "awesome developers", quality took a dive...
petera wrote:
Hello,
I think you've made a really shitty move on the community. You say you want to become a great software company and that you want to make a successful business model for Reflector. Well, guess what? You are doing the exact opposite. This will give you shit storms of bad publicity. If you can't make it the success you expect it to be, I suggest you just hand it over to the open source community at CodePlex. I'm sure there'll be people out there more competent than you guys to drive this forward in a manner that doesn't back stab the developers.
I just want to remind you of this quote:
"Our commitment is to maintain an amazing free tool that will continue to benefit the community while seeking input from users on ways to make .NET Reflector even more valuable."
Well, you have failed at that commitment. Big time.
Your parents should feel really ashamed of your actions and for not giving you a higher sense of morale and making you men of your words.
I really don't hope for your guys sake that Anonymous picks this up.
Nowhere in that quote is it said that they are committed to providing any user a 'free' version of their acquired product. I think that their commitment of maintaining an "amazing free tool" is quite adequate and just because they have acquire a free tool, maintained it and supplied it to others for no cost initially does not violate their commitment.
I can personally vouch that they have maintained and improved the tool since its acquisition.
There is nothing for them to be ashamed about.
Cheers. / comments
petera wrote:
Hello,
I think you've made a really shitty move on the community. You say you want to become a great software company and that you want to make a successful business model for Refl...
jeremy.parsons wrote:
To clarify one point about the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), according to Wikipedia,
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.
In other words, this is a measure that protects copyright holders. I guess it's best known in the context of music.
Hope that helps.
"The hills are alive with the Sound of Music!" / comments
jeremy.parsons wrote:
To clarify one point about the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), according to Wikipedia,
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or ...
RichardD wrote:
Interesting. It probably won't be free, but I'd rather give money to JetBrains - with their unblemished history of not ripping people off - than RedGate.
I own both JetBrains ReSharper and RedGate's .NET Developer bundle. I purchased each with a specific use in mind.
With regards to ReSharper, it's a great tool --I just wish it didn't slow my IDE down to a crawl or conflict with other Visual Studio add-ins. I usually have to disable it and haven't used it for months.
However, I don't see that issue with RedGate's profiling tools. (Reflector is just the icing on the cake with that bundle.)
It's a not about 'ripping people off' as much as it is creating a useful tool which gives you the best "bang for your buck". Since I actually have to disable ReSharper to develop, I was the one who got ripped off for something I can't use. / comments
RichardD wrote:
Interesting. It probably won't be free, but I'd rather give money to JetBrains - with their unblemished history of not ripping people off - than RedGate.
I own both JetBrains R...
Greg.Tillman wrote:
mlsomers i can also assure you that there is no conspiracy theory relating to SmartAssembly although you are right that there may be some cross over of users that would be interested in both products.
You know Greg, since Reflector is now a paid product, it might be worthwhile to consider some type of "Independent Software Vendor" program for those developer who do write add-ins for reflector.
After all, the more developers you have adding to a product reduces the amount of development time for certain features and functionality. The base language reflection is still part of the core app, but the tools that go along with it keep it useful for several audiences. / comments
Greg.Tillman wrote:
mlsomers i can also assure you that there is no conspiracy theory relating to SmartAssembly although you are right that there may be some cross over of users that would be i...
NickCraver wrote:
Let's be clear on something, .Net Reflector was free for 8 years before Red Gate got a hold of it. Yes there has always been a time-bomb, but why was it there? It was so that Lutz Roeder didn't have to support many versions at once, not used as a ransom device to extract money from as many as possible whenever Red Gate chose to.[/b]
It is funny that you say that, because I had noted earlier that the forced upgrades were to avoid continual support requests for older versions of the product.
I really hope it is still the case and that with the last version of Reflector there is no 'force' of upgrading, but a simple unlock and perhaps even a short-term discount. (Which is probably covered by the 50 licenses Red Gate donated.)
I don't think that Red Gate chose this as a "ransom" device to force to people to pay for an upgrade; but I could be wrong. Perhaps their announcement was to notify others that they would begin charging for the product and the product did not yet force an upgrade which asked them to pay. / comments
NickCraver wrote:
Let's be clear on something, .Net Reflector was free for 8 years before Red Gate got a hold of it. Yes there has always been a time-bomb, but why was it there? It was so that...
NickCraver wrote:
JDelekto wrote:
Was the word 'promise' ever used in any of their communication or was it all implied by a community who made such an assumption because they said they would continue to provide a 'free' version of Reflector?
So you're arguing that since they never explicitly use the word "promise" it's all ok? That just turns it into a lie to the community, I'm failing to see how that's any better.
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.
Perhaps they will release a free version of 6 which doesn't have the forced upgrade; however, I wouldn't expect any kind of technical support or any future support for changes in the language it attempts to decompile. / comments
NickCraver wrote:
JDelekto wrote:
Was the word 'promise' ever used in any of their communication or was it all implied by a community who made such an assumption because they said they would ...