A tale of one upgrade - This will blow your socks off!
-
OMG. They are threatening legal action on me. lol This is a tale about one little request for component updates that has found the company threatening legal action on me. It is hilarious in the extreme. I have attached the thread of the e-mails for you purusal. Names have been edited to protect the guilty. I dont need a frivalous libel suit. Some context: I am one of the little guys. Single Developer, own small business, a few clients. I need a barcoding component and shop around until I locate a barcode component supplier (lets call them SleaseSoft) which have a component that I can distribute Barcode components to multiple end-users without needing an additional license for each end-user. I buy it about a year ago at a promotional price and I make a simple request to get current binaries as they cant be downloaded from the site.
Queue wavy musicAnd this is where the tale begins... PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. Come back here when done.... So... Amazing eh. So basically in their words I violate the terms of their agreement by developing applications with their component? What am I supposed to use it for? a paperweight? Am I out of line? If I am a single user using the software do you think I have violated the terms of their agreement. I dont think so but I'd like your opinions. Cheers, David --------------------------------------------- PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. --------------------------------------------- First: These terms are not included in the software supplied, nor do I believe that they were spelled out on the web site at the time I purchased the software. (The web site changed and I have proof that it did). Second: Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses The 3 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 3 developers and 15,000 user licenses. The 5 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 5 developers and 20,000 user licenses. Single Server License is for using our component(s) on one server with 1 CPU in your organization." In my view I have complied with all the specified terms. I AM THE user (I hOrcrist wrote:
I'd be sueing your ass if I didn’t have better things to do with my time.
:-D I love it. Awesome way to end the e-mail. Please...do tell who this company was. I'd love to know so we can avoid using them at all costs. :)
Picture a huge catholic cathedral. In it there's many people, including a gregorian monk choir. You know, those who sing beautifully. Then they start singing, in latin, as they always do: "Ad hominem..." -Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
From my experiences with them it sounds like he was dealing with ComponentOne. For incompetent support accept no substitute.
Nope, But I agree with your assessment of C1's support. But in their defense they do have a select few support staff that are very good. Bernardo de Castilho in the Reports forum Michael Eisenstein in the C1Data (but that was a long time ago - he doesnt do it anymore as best I can tell) But there is always a few good apples in every rotten barrel (or did i get that mixed up).. D.
-
OMG. They are threatening legal action on me. lol This is a tale about one little request for component updates that has found the company threatening legal action on me. It is hilarious in the extreme. I have attached the thread of the e-mails for you purusal. Names have been edited to protect the guilty. I dont need a frivalous libel suit. Some context: I am one of the little guys. Single Developer, own small business, a few clients. I need a barcoding component and shop around until I locate a barcode component supplier (lets call them SleaseSoft) which have a component that I can distribute Barcode components to multiple end-users without needing an additional license for each end-user. I buy it about a year ago at a promotional price and I make a simple request to get current binaries as they cant be downloaded from the site.
Queue wavy musicAnd this is where the tale begins... PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. Come back here when done.... So... Amazing eh. So basically in their words I violate the terms of their agreement by developing applications with their component? What am I supposed to use it for? a paperweight? Am I out of line? If I am a single user using the software do you think I have violated the terms of their agreement. I dont think so but I'd like your opinions. Cheers, David --------------------------------------------- PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. --------------------------------------------- First: These terms are not included in the software supplied, nor do I believe that they were spelled out on the web site at the time I purchased the software. (The web site changed and I have proof that it did). Second: Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses The 3 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 3 developers and 15,000 user licenses. The 5 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 5 developers and 20,000 user licenses. Single Server License is for using our component(s) on one server with 1 CPU in your organization." In my view I have complied with all the specified terms. I AM THE user (I hOrcrist wrote:
Thanks for your order for SleaseSoft .Net Windows Forms Control 2.0 Single User Version,
Orcrist wrote:
Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses
It reads to me that you bought a Single User License, not a Single Developer License. If that's true, you're stuck, and they have a strong case against you. Sorry 'bout that... "...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
-
How about a name of this componet and Co? I will be looking into a suite of componets early next year. I'd like to avoid anyone how threatens to sue people in such an offhanded manner. Cheers Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
For barcoding I spent quite a bit of time looking for suppliers because I dont have a large budget and many are very expensive. One that I found and tried (but didnt purchase - I went with sleasesoft) was NeoDynamics. However they seem reasonably okay pricewise and product wise but I didnt check their license too closely. They were only a little more expensive than sleasesoft. In either case with Barcoding it is important to know that there are Barcode Fonts and Barcode Vectors. For individual barcoding Vectors are fine but I found that trying to print an entire sheet (40 or so consecutive barcodes on a label sheet) of Vector based Barcodes took minutes to print whereas the Fonts took seconds. D.
-
Orcrist wrote:
Thanks for your order for SleaseSoft .Net Windows Forms Control 2.0 Single User Version,
Orcrist wrote:
Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses
It reads to me that you bought a Single User License, not a Single Developer License. If that's true, you're stuck, and they have a strong case against you. Sorry 'bout that... "...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
Thats interesting. I bought a single Developer license, 100% sure of it, even if their e-mail at the bottom indicates User license. My (original) interpretation is that a single Developer license allows one user (me the developer) to use it on one CPU. and royalty free distribute it up to 10000 users. Reading it more carefully it is easy to miss the words User "License". At the time I bought the software they did not have a "User License". It is on the website now but it is flagged as a "NEW" product. Also there were no terms supplied with the product download so it is impossible to say what the actual license was when it was purchased. I do know however that the website order page changed from the date of my original order. Essentially what it means (based on current terms) is that I am licensed but my client may not be. Thanks for the insight. D. -- modified at 14:07 Friday 2nd December, 2005
-
Orcrist wrote:
I'd be sueing your ass if I didn’t have better things to do with my time.
:-D I love it. Awesome way to end the e-mail. Please...do tell who this company was. I'd love to know so we can avoid using them at all costs. :)
Picture a huge catholic cathedral. In it there's many people, including a gregorian monk choir. You know, those who sing beautifully. Then they start singing, in latin, as they always do: "Ad hominem..." -Jörgen Sigvardsson
Eh, better check how your quotes are displaying there boyo. Ff 1.5. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Thats interesting. I bought a single Developer license, 100% sure of it, even if their e-mail at the bottom indicates User license. My (original) interpretation is that a single Developer license allows one user (me the developer) to use it on one CPU. and royalty free distribute it up to 10000 users. Reading it more carefully it is easy to miss the words User "License". At the time I bought the software they did not have a "User License". It is on the website now but it is flagged as a "NEW" product. Also there were no terms supplied with the product download so it is impossible to say what the actual license was when it was purchased. I do know however that the website order page changed from the date of my original order. Essentially what it means (based on current terms) is that I am licensed but my client may not be. Thanks for the insight. D. -- modified at 14:07 Friday 2nd December, 2005
You've really gotta tell us the name of that company :-)
-
OMG. They are threatening legal action on me. lol This is a tale about one little request for component updates that has found the company threatening legal action on me. It is hilarious in the extreme. I have attached the thread of the e-mails for you purusal. Names have been edited to protect the guilty. I dont need a frivalous libel suit. Some context: I am one of the little guys. Single Developer, own small business, a few clients. I need a barcoding component and shop around until I locate a barcode component supplier (lets call them SleaseSoft) which have a component that I can distribute Barcode components to multiple end-users without needing an additional license for each end-user. I buy it about a year ago at a promotional price and I make a simple request to get current binaries as they cant be downloaded from the site.
Queue wavy musicAnd this is where the tale begins... PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. Come back here when done.... So... Amazing eh. So basically in their words I violate the terms of their agreement by developing applications with their component? What am I supposed to use it for? a paperweight? Am I out of line? If I am a single user using the software do you think I have violated the terms of their agreement. I dont think so but I'd like your opinions. Cheers, David --------------------------------------------- PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. --------------------------------------------- First: These terms are not included in the software supplied, nor do I believe that they were spelled out on the web site at the time I purchased the software. (The web site changed and I have proof that it did). Second: Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses The 3 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 3 developers and 15,000 user licenses. The 5 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 5 developers and 20,000 user licenses. Single Server License is for using our component(s) on one server with 1 CPU in your organization." In my view I have complied with all the specified terms. I AM THE user (I hA single google (.Net barcode control) found me the company involved... It looks a case of "single user" x "single developer", but (in the current order page) the .Net control is not available for "single user". Even if Orcrist had bought the wrong version, it would make more sense for them to say something like, "sorry, you seem to have bought the wrong product. For just $xxx you can upgrade to the right product and receive the latest version with so and so improvements". They would get a sale and a happy customer instead of this bad press. Daniel
-
OMG. They are threatening legal action on me. lol This is a tale about one little request for component updates that has found the company threatening legal action on me. It is hilarious in the extreme. I have attached the thread of the e-mails for you purusal. Names have been edited to protect the guilty. I dont need a frivalous libel suit. Some context: I am one of the little guys. Single Developer, own small business, a few clients. I need a barcoding component and shop around until I locate a barcode component supplier (lets call them SleaseSoft) which have a component that I can distribute Barcode components to multiple end-users without needing an additional license for each end-user. I buy it about a year ago at a promotional price and I make a simple request to get current binaries as they cant be downloaded from the site.
Queue wavy musicAnd this is where the tale begins... PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. Come back here when done.... So... Amazing eh. So basically in their words I violate the terms of their agreement by developing applications with their component? What am I supposed to use it for? a paperweight? Am I out of line? If I am a single user using the software do you think I have violated the terms of their agreement. I dont think so but I'd like your opinions. Cheers, David --------------------------------------------- PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. --------------------------------------------- First: These terms are not included in the software supplied, nor do I believe that they were spelled out on the web site at the time I purchased the software. (The web site changed and I have proof that it did). Second: Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses The 3 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 3 developers and 15,000 user licenses. The 5 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 5 developers and 20,000 user licenses. Single Server License is for using our component(s) on one server with 1 CPU in your organization." In my view I have complied with all the specified terms. I AM THE user (I hYou must name the company for the sake of keeping us from having the same experience. If they bring a suit against you you can ask us all to testify FOR you:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
A single google (.Net barcode control) found me the company involved... It looks a case of "single user" x "single developer", but (in the current order page) the .Net control is not available for "single user". Even if Orcrist had bought the wrong version, it would make more sense for them to say something like, "sorry, you seem to have bought the wrong product. For just $xxx you can upgrade to the right product and receive the latest version with so and so improvements". They would get a sale and a happy customer instead of this bad press. Daniel
Wow, really had to change that name a lot eh? :laugh: ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
You must name the company for the sake of keeping us from having the same experience. If they bring a suit against you you can ask us all to testify FOR you:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
I understand. But it is all a matter of interpretation. As a couple people pointed out, the User license and Developer License is a important point. I believe 100% that I purchased the correct version of the software and that the company is in error but assuredly they would feel the exact way at their end. If I am in error I dont want to compound the problem by hurting their reputation. It certainly would not be my intent. In either case they could have dealt with this item so much more tactfully. D.
-
A single google (.Net barcode control) found me the company involved... It looks a case of "single user" x "single developer", but (in the current order page) the .Net control is not available for "single user". Even if Orcrist had bought the wrong version, it would make more sense for them to say something like, "sorry, you seem to have bought the wrong product. For just $xxx you can upgrade to the right product and receive the latest version with so and so improvements". They would get a sale and a happy customer instead of this bad press. Daniel
-
You must name the company for the sake of keeping us from having the same experience. If they bring a suit against you you can ask us all to testify FOR you:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
A good guess would be http://www.easesoft.net/[^]. ;) Of course, this is just a guess. Joseph Dempsey joseph_r_dempsey@yahoo.com
-
You must name the company for the sake of keeping us from having the same experience. If they bring a suit against you you can ask us all to testify FOR you:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
see the sub-thread above you :)
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist -
see the sub-thread above you :)
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighistNote my response in said thread:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
Eh, better check how your quotes are displaying there boyo. Ff 1.5. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Colib and ilikecameras. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Eh. That's my fault. You may have seen some of the dialogue I've been having with Shog. I'm re-working CPhog to use the Midas engine. One of the issues is that my text overlaps with the quote text right now. I'm in the middle of solving it. ;P
Picture a huge catholic cathedral. In it there's many people, including a gregorian monk choir. You know, those who sing beautifully. Then they start singing, in latin, as they always do: "Ad hominem..." -Jörgen Sigvardsson
-
Note my response in said thread:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
:doh:
We say "get a life" to each other, disappointed or jokingly. What we forget, though, is that this is possibly the most destructive advice you can give to a geek.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Thats interesting. I bought a single Developer license, 100% sure of it, even if their e-mail at the bottom indicates User license. My (original) interpretation is that a single Developer license allows one user (me the developer) to use it on one CPU. and royalty free distribute it up to 10000 users. Reading it more carefully it is easy to miss the words User "License". At the time I bought the software they did not have a "User License". It is on the website now but it is flagged as a "NEW" product. Also there were no terms supplied with the product download so it is impossible to say what the actual license was when it was purchased. I do know however that the website order page changed from the date of my original order. Essentially what it means (based on current terms) is that I am licensed but my client may not be. Thanks for the insight. D. -- modified at 14:07 Friday 2nd December, 2005
Have a closer look at their current order page. Single USER licenses are only available for ActiveX controls. All windows forms controls have at least one developer license (including 10000 user licenses).
-
OMG. They are threatening legal action on me. lol This is a tale about one little request for component updates that has found the company threatening legal action on me. It is hilarious in the extreme. I have attached the thread of the e-mails for you purusal. Names have been edited to protect the guilty. I dont need a frivalous libel suit. Some context: I am one of the little guys. Single Developer, own small business, a few clients. I need a barcoding component and shop around until I locate a barcode component supplier (lets call them SleaseSoft) which have a component that I can distribute Barcode components to multiple end-users without needing an additional license for each end-user. I buy it about a year ago at a promotional price and I make a simple request to get current binaries as they cant be downloaded from the site.
Queue wavy musicAnd this is where the tale begins... PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. Come back here when done.... So... Amazing eh. So basically in their words I violate the terms of their agreement by developing applications with their component? What am I supposed to use it for? a paperweight? Am I out of line? If I am a single user using the software do you think I have violated the terms of their agreement. I dont think so but I'd like your opinions. Cheers, David --------------------------------------------- PLEASE READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP from this point or you will lose the context of the story. --------------------------------------------- First: These terms are not included in the software supplied, nor do I believe that they were spelled out on the web site at the time I purchased the software. (The web site changed and I have proof that it did). Second: Your (current) terms specify: "The Single User License allows one user uses the SOFTWARE on ONE CPU Single Developer License allows one Developer royalty-free distribution of the Software internally (in the same organization) and externally (outside the organization) up to a limit of 10,000 user licenses The 3 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 3 developers and 15,000 user licenses. The 5 Developer License grants the rights of the Developer License for up to 5 developers and 20,000 user licenses. Single Server License is for using our component(s) on one server with 1 CPU in your organization." In my view I have complied with all the specified terms. I AM THE user (I h -
Have a closer look at their current order page. Single USER licenses are only available for ActiveX controls. All windows forms controls have at least one developer license (including 10000 user licenses).
Certainly have. This is also not the original order page that I placed my order on. I could be mistaken but I dont think this was the same terms that I ordered the software under, and since the software package never had a license we may never know. Only recently have I become aware of the User version of the software. If you look at the product desription on the bottom of their first e-mail to me the product name is not even the same as the ActiveX. In fact it is exactly the same name as the developer controls. Where the "Single User License" came in I can only attribute to error on their part. It should probably have read "Single Developer License". Also when I see ActiveX in the software name I assume that means VB6 com based components. There is no .Net "User" control that I can find in their product set. I was 100% certain when I bought it that it was a promotionally priced functional control for development and the software that they actually sent me was a full version of the software. In either case if I had inadvertantly purchased the wrong version of the software I would certainly comply with their licensing terms. I am very moralistic when it comes to licencing of software. I have fully licensed versions of Winzip and other shareware applications that many people use routinely used in demo mode forever. Since it would appear that the user licenses are possibly in violation I will correct this with due haste. That is part of the reason I posted here in the first place. I wanted input from peers as to whether I am out of line with respect to how I handled the matter. I felt that the company was quite heavyhanded in their dealings with me. I may have sounded a little surprised or frustrated in my e-mails that they wanted to charge me for updates to software versions I felt I had purchased licenses for. But certainly not to the extent that they should whip out the "we will consult our lawyers" schtick, and imply that I am a criminal. This could have been handled so much more tactfully by them. The comments from forum members have been good and provided some context to the issue. Cheers, D.