By this argument it means no one could charge for Eclipse plugins. There are quite a few very decent, very well done Eclipse plugins that are not free. Shoot, by this argument no one should sell work they develop on Railo, since Railo is free. I'm sure you didn't imply that, but I think it is great the Eclipse plugin allows for this type of market.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the non-original UI. You say it's like Eclipse (well, duh, it is an Eclipse plugin??) or like CFEclipse which implies IP theft. Is that what you really mean? On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Rick Faircloth <[email protected]> wrote: > They can charge what they want, but that doesn't mean they are > right to charge any amount when a lot of the work in developing > the IDE (interface, plug-in style, etc., Eclipse and CFEclipse) was done by > others. > > Dreamweaver: Original product built from the ground up...charging > $300...justified > > CFBuilder: Non-original, tack-on plug-in, whose user interface isn't > even original (purposefully created this way, I'm sure, so > so that Eclipse and CFEclipse users would make an easy > transition to its use...again a benefit to Adobe by from the > work of others)...charging $300...not justified > > And, yes, I could make back the money soon if it cost $ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:332030 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
