Arguments, even heated arguments, are fine so long as actual issues are
being discussed, but all around, PLEASE don't post ad-hominem attacks--
they benefit no one.
We've let this thread continue in order to give appropriate play to the
issue Evan raised, but, at this point it's generating far more heat than
light.
So, I ask that you all refrain from (re)posting any points which have
already been made.
In specific response to Evan's previous post:
* If we are attempting to obscure what a "single user" license means,
I regret that but how we may be doing so truly escapes me.
* If however, this is a circular argument in conjunction with your
observations about the license being "lawerly, software licensy" and
otherwise that the license terms do not match your personal
expectations, we must respectfully refuse both the postulates and
conclusion.
NB: The general model of software licenses qua software licenses may or
may not be flawed, but this model should hardly be unfamiliar to any
experienced computer owner as I expect all parties here are, nor is
this an appropriate topic for the list.
* As best I understand, the problem with the simultaneous-use alert
is not that it doesn't clearly explain why it's appearing, but rather
that its appearance is unwanted
My own observations:
* We have absolutely no desire to unnecessarily inconvenience our customers.
* As Rich mentioned, we unfortunately have ample evidence that there are
parties who abuse their licenses.
* We do have an interest in addressing this situation, which we chose to
do, by implementing a mechanism which in our estimate would make using
the software less convenient for license abusers, while being as
transparent as possible to customers who do abide by their license.
(* tangential but related: I opposed using serial number-activation
for a long time on these grounds, until with the substantial switch
to downloads it obviously became a considerable net advantage for
customers to be able to just download and use a copy of the software
anywhere as long as they have their product SN)
* Perhaps simultaneous use on two machines is not an ideal number...
perhaps not on three, nor four, nor N. Having gotten numerous inquiries
from customers over time asking if "it's OK for me to use BBEdit on my
[PowerBook & desktop], [home & work Mac], [etc.]" we based our choice
on this feedback and these very common situations.
* Instead of telling people to just ignore the 'single-user, single-machine'
restriction of the license, we decided it would best to explicitly make
clear this was OK by rewriting the license terms.
* Per the suggestions about username matching, idle timers, etc. for
changing how the usage checker works, it's my experience that all too
often, the more clever one tries to be about such things :-), the
worse the ultimate result often is -- best to keep things as simple
as possible.
* If there is demand for some sort of 'family license', or 'power user'
license for existing customers, we'd certainly be interested in obliging
that. The reason there currently aren't any such options is that
heretofore, we haven't seen demand for them.
Finally, to everyone who's not interested in this thread and/or who's been
snowed under by the posting volume, please accept my apologies.
Regards,
Patrick Woolsey / Director of Technical Services
==
Bare Bones Software, Inc. <http://www.barebones.com>
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a feature request? Not sure the software's working correctly?
If so, please send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not to the list.
List FAQ: <http://www.barebones.com/support/lists/bbedit_talk.shtml>
List archives: <http://www.listsearch.com/BBEditTalk.lasso>
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
