At 08:02 AM 5/15/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I received it yesterday. However, I haven't yet decided whether to sign or >not. Perhaps the biggest sticking point is that the license specifically >forbids me to use the beta to do real work - above and beyond the usual >disclaimers of liability for any of the results.
Unless Beta testers ignore it, that would be a severe handicap placed upon Beta testing (I'm neither confirming nor contradicting the report above). It would make testing perhaps 5% as effective as it would be without the restriction. I can only see two reasons why Protel might have that restriction: (1) Liability if program defects caused loss of work product. But this has already been covered according to the report above. (2) Fear that Beta testers will keep using Beta after the Beta period expires and not pay for the upgrade. While it might be true that some would do this, it is a singularly stingy approach. Beta testers put in a lot of work; the ability to continue to use a Beta program beyond its time would be a very small compensation. However, Protel might instead offer Beta testers who actually made or confirmed bug reports a discount on the upgrade.... if they do this, the restriction would not be offensive. the big problem with the reported restriction is that it would require users to do *extra* work in Beta testing beyond the work involved in communicating problems. I've always tested the software, in the past, on real work. If the report is valid, does Protel think we have loads of spare time? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
