Re: BlueDragon License Change
Thanks Casey. I will check it out. I also found this last night: http://www.ignitefusion.com/default.htm I submitted a post to the New Atlanta list as Charlie requested. David >Sorry to add to an already blunted topic but for those who wish to get >rid of licencing agreements... please check out my previous question >on this crap. > >http://houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/messages.cfm/forumid:4/threadid:43959 > > >Someone must be using Coral Web Builder. > > >Other than that, get over it and Buy Coldfusion or BlueDragon > >Casey > >On 1/22/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230240 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Sorry to add to an already blunted topic but for those who wish to get rid of licencing agreements... please check out my previous question on this crap. http://houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/messages.cfm/forumid:4/threadid:43959 Someone must be using Coral Web Builder. Other than that, get over it and Buy Coldfusion or BlueDragon Casey On 1/22/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks.. > > That is what I thought this thread just kind of confused me I guess... > > ;-) > > Yves > > On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyone else feel that we're somehow going in circles? :-) Yes, Yves, you > > certainly may. Nothing has changed about the use of the free Server edition > > for non-commercial use. > > > > /charlie > > > > > > >Hi there, > > > > > >And the free version could still be used to non-commercial use? > > > > > >Yves > > > > > >On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230207 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Thanks.. That is what I thought this thread just kind of confused me I guess... ;-) Yves On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone else feel that we're somehow going in circles? :-) Yes, Yves, you > certainly may. Nothing has changed about the use of the free Server edition > for non-commercial use. > > /charlie > > > >Hi there, > > > >And the free version could still be used to non-commercial use? > > > >Yves > > > >On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230204 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: BlueDragon License Change
Sorry, but it is hard to keep up with all the posts on this list. -Original Message- From: charles arehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2006 15:31 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change Russ, we do already do that. :-) Again, I feel we're going in circles. The note you quote below was a response by Tony to one where I had said, in conclusion: > 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). Folks, let's not confuse the free Server edition (which can be deployed for free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use) from the Server JX, J2EE, and .NET editions which are all also "free" to use for development, but which require a license for deployment. Hope that explains things. /charlie >On a side note, as this version is for development, what if you intend >to deploy on .net? >Wouldn't it be useful to have a free *not for commercial use* of the >.net version as well, as you are developing on the same platform you >intend to deploy on. >It could have the same restrictions that CFMx has, i.e. only xx number >of IP's can access it, or perhaps restrict it to local LAN IP's. or >some other solution altogether. > >Russ > >-Original Message- >From: charles arehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 22 January 2006 05:51 >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change > >No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. >I was only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use >could continue to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). > >On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just >like the other editions. > >/charlie ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230203 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Folks, can we please take this aspect of the discussion off the list here and over to the BD Interest list? Besides not wanting to bother folks who may not be interested in the subject, when we stretch into the realm of not just asking/answering simple questions to instead making suggestions for how New Atlanta ought to word its licensing agreement or position the product, those REALLY need to go to the executives in the company and the product management team, who are not all watching this. Please don't take this as somehow dodging the question. I'm not. It's just not my decision to make, so you need to get it to the right people, and I don't want to try to play operator between the parties who need to speak to each other. :-) Also, if someone is really, sincerely interested in BD, they ought to be on that list (as indeed Steven is already), so I'm not really asking for extra effort or proposing some additional email load. /charlie >> Folks, let's not confuse the free Server edition (which can be deployed for >> free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use) >> from the Server JX, J2EE, and .NET editions which are all also "free" to use >> for development, but which require a license for deployment. >> >> Hope that explains things. >> >> /charlie > >Charlie...the confusion for me is the line above ..."(which can be deployed >for >free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution >use)...". >To me "production" generally means "commercial" with the exception of putting >an >app into production in your own office for internal use. I just think there >needs to be a VERY clear seperation there and IMHO that line is not >straightforward ;-) I'd also say the "hosting" bit is a tad vague. I'm sure >you mean ISPs can't use it to host their customers sites. It could me >mistaken >for "hosting an app in production" ;-) > >my 2 cents from the side lines > >Cheers > >Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. >VP & Director of E-Commerce Development >Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. >phone: 250.480.0642 >fax: 250.480.1264 >cell: 250.920.8830 >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >web: www.electricedgesystems.com >- Original Message - >From: "charles arehart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" >Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:31 AM >Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change > > >> ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230198 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
> Folks, let's not confuse the free Server edition (which can be deployed for > free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use) > from the Server JX, J2EE, and .NET editions which are all also "free" to use > for development, but which require a license for deployment. > > Hope that explains things. > > /charlie Charlie...the confusion for me is the line above ..."(which can be deployed for free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use)...". To me "production" generally means "commercial" with the exception of putting an app into production in your own office for internal use. I just think there needs to be a VERY clear seperation there and IMHO that line is not straightforward ;-) I'd also say the "hosting" bit is a tad vague. I'm sure you mean ISPs can't use it to host their customers sites. It could me mistaken for "hosting an app in production" ;-) my 2 cents from the side lines Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.electricedgesystems.com - Original Message - From: "charles arehart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:31 AM Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change > Russ, we do already do that. :-) Again, I feel we're going in circles. The > note you quote below was a response by Tony to one where I had said, in > conclusion: > >> 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). > > Folks, let's not confuse the free Server edition (which can be deployed for > free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use) > from the Server JX, J2EE, and .NET editions which are all also "free" to use > for development, but which require a license for deployment. > > Hope that explains things. > > /charlie > >>On a side note, as this version is for development, what if you intend to >>deploy on .net? >>Wouldn't it be useful to have a free *not for commercial use* of the .net >>version as well, as you are developing on the same platform you intend to >>deploy on. >>It could have the same restrictions that CFMx has, i.e. only xx number of >>IP's can access it, or perhaps restrict it to local LAN IP's. or some other >>solution altogether. >> >>Russ >> >>-Original Message- >>From: charles arehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: 22 January 2006 05:51 >>To: CF-Talk >>Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change >> >>No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. I >>was only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use could >>continue to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). >> >>On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just like >>the other editions. >> >>/charlie > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230196 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Russ, we do already do that. :-) Again, I feel we're going in circles. The note you quote below was a response by Tony to one where I had said, in conclusion: > 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). Folks, let's not confuse the free Server edition (which can be deployed for free in production except for commercial, hosting, and redistribution use) from the Server JX, J2EE, and .NET editions which are all also "free" to use for development, but which require a license for deployment. Hope that explains things. /charlie >On a side note, as this version is for development, what if you intend to >deploy on .net? >Wouldn't it be useful to have a free *not for commercial use* of the .net >version as well, as you are developing on the same platform you intend to >deploy on. >It could have the same restrictions that CFMx has, i.e. only xx number of >IP's can access it, or perhaps restrict it to local LAN IP's. or some other >solution altogether. > >Russ > >-Original Message- >From: charles arehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 22 January 2006 05:51 >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change > >No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. I >was only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use could >continue to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). > >On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just like >the other editions. > >/charlie ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230193 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Anyone else feel that we're somehow going in circles? :-) Yes, Yves, you certainly may. Nothing has changed about the use of the free Server edition for non-commercial use. /charlie >Hi there, > >And the free version could still be used to non-commercial use? > >Yves > >On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230192 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Hi there, And the free version could still be used to non-commercial use? Yves On 1/22/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. I was > only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use could continue > to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). > > On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just like > the other editions. > > /charlie > > >so the free version will stay at its current development point > >and stop? and newer updated versions are going to cost money? > >or will the free version be privvy to the upgrades that you make in > >the sever codebase? > > > >tony > > > > > > > >On 1/21/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230190 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
RE: BlueDragon License Change
On a side note, as this version is for development, what if you intend to deploy on .net? Wouldn't it be useful to have a free *not for commercial use* of the .net version as well, as you are developing on the same platform you intend to deploy on. It could have the same restrictions that CFMx has, i.e. only xx number of IP's can access it, or perhaps restrict it to local LAN IP's. or some other solution altogether. Russ -Original Message- From: charles arehart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2006 05:51 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. I was only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use could continue to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just like the other editions. /charlie >so the free version will stay at its current development point and >stop? and newer updated versions are going to cost money? >or will the free version be privvy to the upgrades that you make in the >sever codebase? > >tony > > > >On 1/21/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230189 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
No, Tony. I wasn't saying that the free version wasn't getting updates. I was only saying that one who wanted to use it for commercial use could continue to use the 6.1 edition (without updates, of course). On the other hand, yes, the free version has always been updated just like the other editions. /charlie >so the free version will stay at its current development point >and stop? and newer updated versions are going to cost money? >or will the free version be privvy to the upgrades that you make in >the sever codebase? > >tony > > > >On 1/21/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230187 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
so the free version will stay at its current development point and stop? and newer updated versions are going to cost money? or will the free version be privvy to the upgrades that you make in the sever codebase? tony On 1/21/06, charles arehart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:4:230186 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
Great post Charlie, Looking forward to seeing what you guys have in store for the CF community. BD only makes this a stronger platform. -- --mattRobertson-- Janitor, MSB Web Systems http://mysecretbase.com ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230178 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
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:4:230174 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
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:4:230166 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
AHA! Thanks - it appears my recollection wasn't too bad after all: "So the bottom line is if you're running a server just for your own organization's applications, you can use the free Server edition. We want to help CFML developers fend off the "free" alternatives like PHP, ASP, and JSP. As we say often, "We love CFML". If you want to take your CFML skills to a client and build an app for them, the free Server edition helps you overcome that argument." (http://bluedragon.blog-city.com/bluedragon_61_free_server_now_featurepacked.htm) This is now no longer that case, as you mentioned; it also means that this is not just a clarification of the original intent, it is a change in intent, as you also noted. On 1/21/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I called New Atlanta and asked about this. I was told that this current > license change was just a 'clarification' of what was always their intent. [snip] -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230164 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
I called New Atlanta and asked about this. I was told that this current license change was just a 'clarification' of what was always their intent. New Atlanta is certainly free to change the license for BD as they wish, I would just prefer they said that was what they were doing. Something like "Hey guys, we are changing the license, but you can still use the previous version according to its license if you wish." When we first downloaded BD I filled out a questionaire and discussed with one of their sales people the uses we anticipated for the free version and that was fine (basically internal reporting). Now those same purposes (using them in a corporate environment) is not OK given the new license changes. I am slightly miffed as I feel like we were encouraged to use BD, but now New Atlanta's intent has changed (bait and switch). If they were up front about it, I would just compare BD and CF and decide which to buy, but I have a funny feeling about how this has played out and will probably just switch to CF or PHP. In addition to the wording of the license in previous versions, here are some other citations that I think indicate that this is a change and not a 'clarification': This article mentions that you are free to deploy it for production purposes (although it mentions you should read the license when downloading): http://cfdj.sys-con.com/read/42081.htm Here is a mention of BD being free for production use in Charlie Arendt's blog: http://bluedragon.blog-city.com/cfml_compatibility_and_why_bluedragon.htm And here is another of Charlie's blog entries where he says it is free for your own organization's applications: http://bluedragon.blog-city.com/bluedragon_61_free_server_now_featurepacked.htm Another blog entry where it is mentioned as free for development and deployment: http://bluedragon.blog-city.com/faq_how_much_does_bluedragon_cost.htm Too bad. I think the CFML world lost something here. David > David McCan wrote: > > >Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon > free edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to > download, install and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine > for development, testing and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license > says "...license to download, install and use BlueDragon Server for > development, testing and non-commercial deployment purposes." Note > the addition of the words "non-commercial". > > > >Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to > deploy BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for > redistributing it). > > > > > My understanding of the license was that "If you make money using our > product, then we need to make money off our product also." I believe > this has always been the intention of their License. It's just hard > to > word something like that in "leagal speak". This seems fair to me > personally. > > NA has an awesome VAR program - if you intend to make money using BD. > It > might be worth a look if you're deploying it for commercial purposes > and > should be able to make everyone involved happy. > > HTH, > -JM > > -- > Warm regards, > Jordan Michaels > Vivio Technologies > http://www.viviotech.net/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230163 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: BlueDragon License Change
> -Original Message- > From: Aaron Roberson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:25 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: BlueDragon License Change > > James Holmes wrote: > > >my recollection is that it could be deployed for serving your own > commercial app, but not for hosting other people's apps (an ISP > couldn't install it, for example). > > >BlueDragon Server is free for non-commercial deployment, meaning you > can use it in production, with restrictions only on redistribution and > hosting. > > The confusion comes in when it says that it is free for deployment, > and then says it is restricted to production (i.e. development). The I don't read that as "production of the application" but rather a "production application". In other words not development but rather the final, public hosting of the application. This explanation meshes well with the way most corporate folks use the term "production". Jim Davis ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230074 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
James Holmes wrote: >my recollection is that it could be deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). The Installation Guide says the following in section 2.1: >BlueDragon Server is free for non-commercial deployment, meaning you can use it in production, with restrictions only on redistribution and hosting. The confusion comes in when it says that it is free for deployment, and then says it is restricted to production (i.e. development). The statement is kind of vague... it could restrict serving your own commercial app seeing that would require deployment as opposed to production, or it could be restricting hosting to third parties such as an ISP would do. What I understand is that it can be deployed on a server, so long as it is not for hosting third party apps or for using with ssl certificates (which is needed for e-commerce sites). -Aaron On 1/19/06, Aaron Roberson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David, > > I suggest you start a thread on the BlueDragon Interest list and see > what the folks at New Atlanta say about this. > > -Aaron > > On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't tried the new build... > > > > I seem to remember seeing new features. from the older build.. but > > I'm not sure... > > > > Man, I'm tired. > > > > :-( > > > > I need loud music or something! > > > > Yves > > > > On 1/19/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > not to change the topic, but how is BD's newest build in comparison > > > with cfmx7 these days? > > > > > > tw > > > > > > On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I believe that the free version was always intended for non-commercial > > > > use. > > > > > > > > I think I actually question Charlie A about it many moons ago > > > > > > > > Yves > > > > > > > > On 1/19/06, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be > > > > > deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting > > > > > other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps my memory is getting worse. > > > > > > > > > > On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the > > > > > > BlueDragon free edition license. The license for 6.2 says > > > > > > "...license to download, install and use BlueDragon Server on a > > > > > > single Server machine for development, testing and deployment > > > > > > purposes." The 6.2.1 license says "...license to download, > > > > > > install and use BlueDragon Server for development, testing and > > > > > > non-commercial deployment purposes." Note the addition of the > > > > > > words "non-commercial". > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to > > > > > > deploy BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for > > > > > > redistributing it). > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: > > > > > http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230072 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
David, I suggest you start a thread on the BlueDragon Interest list and see what the folks at New Atlanta say about this. -Aaron On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't tried the new build... > > I seem to remember seeing new features. from the older build.. but > I'm not sure... > > Man, I'm tired. > > :-( > > I need loud music or something! > > Yves > > On 1/19/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > not to change the topic, but how is BD's newest build in comparison > > with cfmx7 these days? > > > > tw > > > > On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I believe that the free version was always intended for non-commercial > > > use. > > > > > > I think I actually question Charlie A about it many moons ago > > > > > > Yves > > > > > > On 1/19/06, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be > > > > deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting > > > > other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). > > > > > > > > Perhaps my memory is getting worse. > > > > > > > > On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon > > > > > free edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to > > > > > download, install and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server > > > > > machine for development, testing and deployment purposes." The > > > > > 6.2.1 license says "...license to download, install and use > > > > > BlueDragon Server for development, testing and non-commercial > > > > > deployment purposes." Note the addition of the words > > > > > "non-commercial". > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to > > > > > deploy BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for > > > > > redistributing it). > > > > > > > > -- > > > > CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: > > > > http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230071 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
I haven't tried the new build... I seem to remember seeing new features. from the older build.. but I'm not sure... Man, I'm tired. :-( I need loud music or something! Yves On 1/19/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not to change the topic, but how is BD's newest build in comparison > with cfmx7 these days? > > tw > > On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe that the free version was always intended for non-commercial use. > > > > I think I actually question Charlie A about it many moons ago > > > > Yves > > > > On 1/19/06, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be > > > deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting > > > other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). > > > > > > Perhaps my memory is getting worse. > > > > > > On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon > > > > free edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to > > > > download, install and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine > > > > for development, testing and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license > > > > says "...license to download, install and use BlueDragon Server for > > > > development, testing and non-commercial deployment purposes." Note the > > > > addition of the words "non-commercial". > > > > > > > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to > > > > deploy BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for > > > > redistributing it). > > > > > > -- > > > CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: > > > http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230070 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
Re: BlueDragon License Change
not to change the topic, but how is BD's newest build in comparison with cfmx7 these days? tw On 1/19/06, Yves Arsenault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe that the free version was always intended for non-commercial use. > > I think I actually question Charlie A about it many moons ago > > Yves > > On 1/19/06, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be > > deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting > > other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). > > > > Perhaps my memory is getting worse. > > > > On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon > > > free edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to download, > > > install and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine for > > > development, testing and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license says > > > "...license to download, install and use BlueDragon Server for > > > development, testing and non-commercial deployment purposes." Note the > > > addition of the words "non-commercial". > > > > > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to > > > deploy BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for redistributing > > > it). > > > > -- > > CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: > > http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ > > > > > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230068 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
I believe that the free version was always intended for non-commercial use. I think I actually question Charlie A about it many moons ago Yves On 1/19/06, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be > deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting > other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). > > Perhaps my memory is getting worse. > > On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon free > > edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to download, install > > and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine for development, > > testing and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license says "...license to > > download, install and use BlueDragon Server for development, testing and > > non-commercial deployment purposes." Note the addition of the words > > "non-commercial". > > > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to deploy > > BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for redistributing it). > > -- > CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: > http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ > > ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230067 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
David McCan wrote: >Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon free >edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to download, install >and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine for development, testing >and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license says "...license to download, >install and use BlueDragon Server for development, testing and non-commercial >deployment purposes." Note the addition of the words "non-commercial". > >Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to deploy >BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for redistributing it). > > My understanding of the license was that "If you make money using our product, then we need to make money off our product also." I believe this has always been the intention of their License. It's just hard to word something like that in "leagal speak". This seems fair to me personally. NA has an awesome VAR program - if you intend to make money using BD. It might be worth a look if you're deploying it for commercial purposes and should be able to make everyone involved happy. HTH, -JM -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230066 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: BlueDragon License Change
That's what I thought too - my recollection is that it could be deployed for serving your own commercial app, but not for hosting other people's apps (an ISP couldn't install it, for example). Perhaps my memory is getting worse. On 1/20/06, David McCan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone I work with noticed a change in the wording of the BlueDragon free > edition license. The license for 6.2 says "...license to download, install > and use BlueDragon Server on a single Server machine for development, testing > and deployment purposes." The 6.2.1 license says "...license to download, > install and use BlueDragon Server for development, testing and non-commercial > deployment purposes." Note the addition of the words "non-commercial". > > Has anyone else noticed this? I recall reading how we were able to deploy > BlueDragon free edition for any purpose (except for redistributing it). -- CFAJAX docs and other useful articles: http://jr-holmes.coldfusionjournal.com/ ~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:230065 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
