Hi Charlie, Thank you for being straight and for mentioning that people could continue to use the earlier version according to its license. As I mentioned, I called the New Atlanta sales person who indicated that the change was a clarification of what had always been the intent, which made me feel bad about even using the previous version.
Before calling New Atlanta I tried searching in the mailing list archive but I guess that 'license' and 'change' are too common to easily find the discussion of the change (that is why I called). Of course you don't have to have a press release, but when people call for clarification some good communication goes a long way. I am willing to chalk it up to mis-communication and know that the next guy who calls won't have the same communication problem I did. David P.S. Sorry for misspelling your name. > Guys, all those links that have been pointed to are from the 6.1 > release of BD. As has been noted by others, the license agreements has > simply changed (like someone said, any company can and does do at > times). The change was as of the 6.2 release. As someone else said, if > you still have a 6.1 release of the product you can certainly still > use it for commercial use. It's just that going forward the new > license agreement stands. > > Like you said, Matt, you can't fault us for wanting to "make money > from the results of the hard work". That's really all this is about. > Not anything about being an "unhealthy company". Indeed, we've gone > from strength to strength and each quarter's sales have exceeded the > previous. This isn't a move of desparation, nor was it made without > consideration about the very issues of concern some have raised. > Things change. > > The free Server edition is still free, just not for commercial use. > It's been discussed on our interest list, so it's not like we're > hiding it. Should we have put out a press release? Written an article > in the CFDJ, or perhaps a retraction of the previous ones? We've > changed the web site, which is really all we really should be expected > to have to do. Sure, some will want more, but put yourself in our > shoes. > > As a for-profit company, our focus is more on solving the problems of > folks who have a need for a need for our commercial products. We still > offer the free version to satisfy the needs of a subset of the rest of > the community. And the get all the benefits of the commercial edition > (not a single tag is held back.) Can you give us credit for that sort > of contribution? > > And to clarify, as some miss this, *all* the editions (including > Server JX, and the enterprise-class J2EE and .NET editions) are free > forever for single IP development use (after a 30 day trial that's not > IP restricted, just like CF). > > /charlie *arehart* (someone spelled it Arendt) > > >Really I can't fault New Atlanta for wanting to make money from > results > >of their hard work, but pretending this is a "clarification of the > >original intent" when they originally sung "free for production use" > to > >the heavens; as often as they could at the time -- as I'm sure most > >people do remember -- strikes me as a mistake. Not the sort of move > you > >expect from a healthy company. > > > >-- > >--mattRobertson-- > >Janitor, MSB Web Systems > >http://mysecretbase. com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230176 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
