+1 for licensing. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Cal Leeming <[email protected]>: > > What this really comes down to... Is the product *worth* donating to? If >> it >> is, then donate. If it isn't, then don't. I can't personally comment >> either >> way as I haven't tried it. >> >> > I agree with you, but in order to test it you *must* donate. First time I > see that. > > Unless you email the authors, or are a FD's subcriber and have used > Steven's mirror. (pre 2.5 was tagged free, now it's tagged "There is no > fixed price to get a copy"). > > I just mean, make a real licensing behind the tool if you want to sell it, > or use a open licensing, but don't play with word in between. > > Playing the donation way can be complex, if a user want a receipt for their > donation, can they produce it ? (I don't know USA law, but where I live only > a official non-profit organisation can receive a 'donation'. Else it's > simply considered a money gift). Their site advertise donation as 10, 50 and > 100$, again, where I live you have the obligation to produce receipt for > donation over 10$. > > But my point is simply they just don't look professionnal, and I judge them > that way because they try to sell the product, not like a GPL source code or > a freeware. > > > > > -phil > >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
