Thanks Kurt. We may do that. Any idea if there would be a way to purchase
a special license which would allow us to make our own installer that is
not available for resale, but we could use on an unlimited basis in-house?
Kurt Mossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/06/2003 12:42 PM
Please respond to spectra-talk
To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
Shawn,
Regarding purchasing duplicate licenses you can do that if you
call MM sales.
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:32 PM
To: Spectra-Talk
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
Yeah, we're already doing that. We'd like to be able to create new
installs though.
"Raymond Camden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/06/2003 11:48 AM
Please respond to spectra-talk
To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
You do know that you can do whatever you want on the box that has the
license, right? So you could extend/modify/etc - and if you keep it on
the same box that legally has Spectra, it's ok.
=======================================================================
Raymond Camden, ColdFusion Jedi Master for Mindseye, Inc
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: Spectra-Talk
> Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
>
>
> I haven't heard any rumors, nor am I trying to start any. It
> is just a
> wish. Maybe someone at MM is listening? We would love to be able to
> (within license) extend the codebase, redo everything with
> CFC's and have
> our own installer package. Not for resale, but for internal
> use within our
> company. In fact, we would most likely be willing to pay MM
> for the right
> to do so, or buy licenses for additional copies to stay
> legal. It would
> still be significantly cheaper than switching to Interwoven,
> which is what
> higher-ups here are pushing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 02/06/2003 10:54 AM
> Please respond to spectra-talk
>
>
> To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
>
> do you think that will happen? we have asked for that for ages!?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 February 2003 15:38
> To: Spectra-Talk
> Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
>
>
> Totally agree on SiteMinder, huge mistake for MM.
>
> I think the biggest error they made was how Spectra was marketed and
> pricing. Look at how much the competing products cost, for example
> Interwoven. Spectra was too cheap to be perceived as a player
> in content
> management. If they set the code free to customers maybe it
> could end up
> being something really solid.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 02/06/2003 10:32 AM
> Please respond to spectra-talk
>
>
> To: Spectra-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: Spectra Trial
>
> > My point was about Figleaf bashing something that they
> > still offer paid training for.
>
> I apologize. It wasn't my intent to bash Spectra per se, and
> I don't speak for Fig Leaf Software in that regard.
>
> > I like and respect Dave and Steve a great deal, but
> > remember how Figleaf aggressively pushed Spectra to
> > clients when it came out. We were one of those who
> > shelled out money for the product, training and
> > consulting services, based on their glowing
> > recommendations.
>
> Well, to be perfectly honest, the way I see it is that
> Spectra had the makings of a potentially great product. To
> elaborate a bit, I think that
> for
> a product of that complexity, it usually takes a couple of
> major versions
> to
> get where you really want to go in the long run. When I
> looked at the initial version, I thought "this will be really
> great by, say, version 3". In that case, it makes sense to
> start using it, and as it gets better, you get the benefits
> of that improvement. At the time, I thought it was as
> good
> or better than competing products, and would be even better
> in the future. Of course, that isn't how things worked out,
> but that was certainly my expectation at the time.
>
> So, anyway, I'm sorry for making a smart remark off-the-cuff; I just
> figured
> there were enough SiteMinder veterans who felt the same way, I guess.
>
> Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
> http://www.figleaf.com/
> voice: (202) 797-5496
> fax: (202) 797-5444
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/spectra_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
