Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:40:07 +0200, Svein Berge <sve...@pvv.org> wrote : > > You are using the Juce framework for your C++ development, > > which is a free software, you know how valuable it is. > > > > I have a commercial license for juce. It was not free.
It was free until you decided to release a proprietary software. There was no 30-day limitation with Internet activation, and yet you bought the commercial license after consulting the licensing web page. > > It would be nice to explain this "calling home" mechanism in your > > licenses. IMO, DRM-like strategies are counter-productive; your > > potential clients should be able to understand licenses and respect > > them. > > > I've done one better: I've added a big, clear note about it in the > download mail. It can't be missed. That works too. > I am now considering to drop linux support. It seems to me that > dipping your toe in linux audio without going all the way, i.e. open > source, is nothing but a way to draw flac. That would be sad, because there's plenty of proprietary/commercial software for Gnu/Linux, like there's Free/Libre software for Windows and OSX. Going Free/Libre is excellent on any platform, but that was really not my point. It was not my intention to give you "flac"; I was critical about the activation mechanism, and I was trying to help people who would like to try the Windows demo plugin with Gnu/Linux, because it is a good platform for audio. A native Gnu/Linux plugin would be a sign that serious developers think this platform is worthwhile. I encourage Gnu/Linux users to ask you for a native plugin. Thanks for you attention. -- Marc _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
