Sorry I haven't had the time yet to respond to your last "dump",
although I am still planning on it (and much of it will have to be
offline since it is unfit for any of the forums), and responding to this
post is not the place to do it, so please stick to the issue at hand

Please see below.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Open source SP7

> Mr. Smith's proposal is of sufficiently questionable legality that it
> be a fairly hazardous undertaking. It might indeed be legal -- too
> details are unknown to me to have a clear opinion -- but if Altium
> threatened by it, who is going to pay the legal expenses to defend
> a suit?

What the hell are you talking about?

Aren't you the guy that has said that it is legitimate for an employee
to take his employers Protel 99 SE CD ROM home and install it on his own
personal machine (or make a copy for himself), and then do whatever he
wants to with Protel 99 SE at home?

That is of known illegality, and absolutely unquestionably unethical.

Yet there is absolutely nothing at all even questionable about writing
your own "servers" utilizing the Protel 99 SE SDK, and either selling
them or giving them away free of charge to other legitimate owners of
Protel 99 SE.

That is a 100% completely legitimate and ethical course of action.

Where are all of the real problems with Protel 99 SE?

Some of them, like "KLUNK", are obviously in "Design Explorer" itself.

However I would maintain that many of the others are actually in the
"servers" and "processes" used by those "servers", all of which could
easily be replaced with new "servers" and "processes".

I am not that up to speed on the Protel 99 SE SDK, but I do believe that
all of this is not only "doable", but "doable ' in a totally legitimate
manner. Perhaps some of those in the list that are more familiar with
the Protel 99 SE SDK and the intimate workings of "Design Explorer", its
"servers", and their "processes", can comment on this.

The only thing in my entire previous post that would be of any
questionable legitimacy, would be the unspoken but possibly preceived
"implication" that any "Trial Version" of Protel 99 SE that was given
away for free, could be "patched" or "cracked" to work longer that 30

Respecting the giving away of the "Trial Version" of Protel 99 SE: Since
it was originally freely given away to absolutely anyone in the world
who wanted it, particularly in the freely downloadable version, I am not
so sure that there would be anything that anyone could do to prevent any
further additional free distribution of it, even if they wanted to. Is
it my fault that there are actually other legitimate ways that you can
still use the Trial Version for more than 30 days?

Besides, most of the people in this forum already legitimately have
their own copy of the full up Protel 99 SE (unless of course they have
already taken your previous advice, and are using a copy of their
employers Protel 99 SE).

> The Association, which has never raised a dime, might nevertheless be
> to manage to support something in the user's interests, but my own
> is that the Association, if it is going to do something serious, is
> advised to work *with* Altium than to advance in what might be or
might be
> perceived to be a hostile fashion.

The "Association" is YOU ! ! !

Are you trying to say that you would be willing to be the repository of
the fruits of everybody else's efforts and labors? Aren't you already
making enough money on your "resales" of Protel 99 SE? Always after that
something for nothing . . .

> If we want an SP7, we could organize and show sufficient interest --
> cash commitment -- that a real SP7 could be produced, not just a
> version dependent upon the limitations of what can be done with the

What's with this "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket?

> Fixing the remaining bugs in 99SE could involve some serious
> Who is going to do it for free? If there is someone, great.

Balderdash! Absolute Balderdash! (I am trying to keep it clean).

It would take some simple programming by a "good programmer" who was
familiar with the source code.

The "remaining bugs" have already been so well defined, I doubt that
they would take very much time at all to find and fix. In fact, I
wouldn't be a bit surprised if thay haven't already been resolved, and
just not implemented and released for either "political" or "strategic"
(sales) reasons. I would be willing to bet that at least some of the
"remaining bugs" could be fixed by nothing more than a fresh compile
with an updated compiler.

> It's important to keep in mind the Protel support model. Protel's
> was (1) free service packs and (2) "upgrades" for a price. It goes
> this policy that service packs are only issued for a limited time.
> that, the Protel model asks you to upgrade. That's where they get
> funding for continued work. Issuing service packs for the superceded
> version essentially robs labor from the current one. So if they were
to do
> it, they should be compensated in some way.

I don't know about you, but when I pay this kind of money for a product
I expect to get as many "service packs" as it takes to make the product
work properly and do the job I paid for it to do! The heck with your
"Model"  (remember, I am trying to keep it clean).

> (Note that Altium has generally issued one more service pack for a
> superceded version after the new version is available.)

OK ! ! !

SO WHERE THE @#$% IS IT ! ! !


> With the current model, not only is Altium not compensated if they
issue a
> service pack for an older version, but by extending the life of the
> version, they are to some extent reducing their income from the new
> version, or at least postponing that income, which can amount to much
> same thing.

Who the heck do you think you are? (remember, I really am trying to keep
this clean)

As if you really are an authorized spokesman for Altium!

For as long as I have been a member of this forum, you have "presumed"
to speak for Altium, and "presumed" to know what they actually think on
a given subject.

Every time you open your mouth and "presume" to speak for Altium, not
only do they get a good laugh, and we also get a good laugh, but they
weasel out of have to provide any real response to the problem at hand,
or accept any responsibility.

Possibly, if you would not be so "presumptuous", it is possible that we
can actually get some real answers and responses directly from Altium
themselves, to the real issues at hand.

> When Altium tried to go to a maintenance fee arrangement, we screamed
> loudly enough that they backed down. If there were a maintenance fee,
> would have a much better chance of getting service packs.... How much
> we be willing to pay for continued work on 99SE? My guess is that if
> paid enough to make the programming effort worthwhile and satisfy the
> issues, we might as well pay little more and get DXP.... But if
someone is
> interesting in getting together an Association effort in the direction
> SP7, voting membership in the Association is open to all Protel

Once again, where the heck do you get this "we"?


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to