Losing the amateur.

[Judy Perry]

This doesn't violate the license agreement?  (Okay, obviously, I didn't
read it...).

Judy

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
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>