This doesn't violate the license agreement? (Okay, obviously, I didn't read it...).
Judy On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 11/2/03 10:25 PM, Dr.John R.Vokey wrote: > > > Ken, > > I think you (and many others) have missed the point. Before RR, I (or > > you, or anyone else) could, and did, routinely provide stacks and the > > url for metacard so that the users of these stacks could, indeed, use > > them. No standalones. No need for them to purchase the engine (however > > ``reasonable''---give me a break--US$75 for the minimum?)--and no need > > to download a net-tested, 30-day ``demo''. > > > > I have used, paid for, and promoted metacard for years (ask Scott Raney, > > if he agrees, to provide his records), and served as a beta-tester for > > RR; this RR attitude is *not* consistent with what Scott Raney and the > > MC team used to support. *If* a free---no network checked, 30-day > > ``demo''---of MC (i.e., an ``engine to run the stacks) were still (and > > always) freely available, I would be less concerned, but don't you (or > > Gay, or ...) defend the current model as ``reasonable'' as if that were > > the issue. It is fundamentally different. And, I believe, contrary to > > what most of us supporting and promoting MC over the years thought we > > were supporting and promoting. Like Ryno Swart, ``I am just a bit > > disappointed.'' Forget that: I am totally disappointed. > > Um. There is nothing preventing anyone from creating a one-card > standalone and making it available for free as a player. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
