concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-26 Thread Richmond Mathewson
Tying an install to one machine is like the chained libraries of the middle-ages: I do most of my progging upstairs on my G4; then pop it on a nifty little USB external box that contains a laptop HD and run downstairs. Inevitably when I bung the stack on the Ubuntu machines I use for Content deli

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-26 Thread Chipp Walters
I agree. All our software products are released for people..not machines. I hate products which force an install on only one machine and try my very best to never use them. -C ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-26 Thread Colin Holgate
At 3:46 PM + 2/26/08, Alex Tweedly wrote: Occasionally I bend the rules, and use both the laptop and the desktop copies at the same time don't tell anyone at Rev :-) :-) Good thing they don't read this list... I too generally treat software licenses as being single user and not sing

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-26 Thread Alex Tweedly
Colin Holgate wrote: Sometimes Rev marketing can be upsetting to recent purchasers. For example, I paid the full price for Rev, but at the time that you could send a second copy to someone. I used that as a way to send a copy to myself at work, so I would be registered ok if I used Rev on my

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Colin Holgate
On Feb 25, 2008, at 8:17 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: Just wondering, did you contact them about upgrading to the free bundle right after it came out? I would be surprised if they wouldn't allow you to do so considering you purchased your version only 24 hours before. I'm not positive about t

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Chipp Walters
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Colin Holgate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The more annoying marketing thing was that right after I had bought > it with that deal, a new deal came out (the Christmas bundle one), > which would have been much more valuable and interesting to me. Just wondering,

concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Richmond Mathewson
Well, I have RR Media 2.7.1 . . . Not, frankly that it is all that useful; so fall back on Dreamcard 2.6.1 and (!!!) RR 2.0.1. sincerely, Richmond Mathewson A Thorn in the flesh is better than a failed Systems Development Life Cyc

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Colin Holgate
At 1:19 PM -0500 2/25/08, Bill Marriott wrote: - You had an active update pack/license on 1 February 2006 How do you normally tell if you do or don't have one of those? - You purchased any version of Revolution 2.7.x How about people who bought 2.8.x? Your later example of someone

Re: concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Bill Marriott
Heather has posted this information in the forums. I'll do the same here: You get Rev 2.9 for free if: - You had an active update pack/license on 1 February 2006 - You purchased any version of Revolution 2.7.x - You bought a RevSelect Holiday bundle - You have an active license pac

concerning 2.9 as "free"

2008-02-25 Thread Andrew Meit
Hi, I would like a clear, detailed statement from Rev explaining who does and doesn't get 2.9 as a free upgrade/update, and how is any 2.9.x updates understood as free or paid for too. For example, if one has any 2.7.x, 2.8.x versions does one get 2.9.0, but any 2.9.x updates will be a requ