Losing the amateur.
jperryl at ecs.fullerton.edu
Mon Nov 3 18:10:28 EST 2003
This doesn't violate the license agreement? (Okay, obviously, I didn't
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 11/2/03 10:25 PM, Dr.John R.Vokey wrote:
> > Ken,
> > I think you (and many others) have missed the point. Before RR, I (or
> > you, or anyone else) could, and did, routinely provide stacks and the
> > url for metacard so that the users of these stacks could, indeed, use
> > them. No standalones. No need for them to purchase the engine (however
> > ``reasonable''---give me a break--US$75 for the minimum?)--and no need
> > to download a net-tested, 30-day ``demo''.
> > I have used, paid for, and promoted metacard for years (ask Scott Raney,
> > if he agrees, to provide his records), and served as a beta-tester for
> > RR; this RR attitude is *not* consistent with what Scott Raney and the
> > MC team used to support. *If* a free---no network checked, 30-day
> > ``demo''---of MC (i.e., an ``engine to run the stacks) were still (and
> > always) freely available, I would be less concerned, but don't you (or
> > Gay, or ...) defend the current model as ``reasonable'' as if that were
> > the issue. It is fundamentally different. And, I believe, contrary to
> > what most of us supporting and promoting MC over the years thought we
> > were supporting and promoting. Like Ryno Swart, ``I am just a bit
> > disappointed.'' Forget that: I am totally disappointed.
> Um. There is nothing preventing anyone from creating a one-card
> standalone and making it available for free as a player.
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
More information about the Use-livecode