3 ms·

> No, but ... Ok, that's cool. > to be able ... run of Minio ... What's Minio? > ... irrevocability ... license-entrapment ... is what you'd like to do ...

> No, but ... Ok, that's cool. > to be able ... run of Minio ... What's Minio? > ... irrevocability ... license-entrapment ... is what you'd like to do ... Hahaha! You are making some provocative accusations there. You really believe they are true? Looks like you are a bully who maybe needs validation of an angry answer, but you probably just innocently misinterpreting, right? The situation is: I want people to use the product. We don't care to litigate them. There's no business model in that.

endigma 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- graderjs 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - graderjs 4y ago
    General Comment to anyone finding this thread: We need to make something very, very clear because it seems people have just gone nuts here, so: time to clarify. Ever since the top comment here about licenses changing, people have gone crazy on this thread. This reaction is misguided because the issue they're reacting to doesn't exist; it's not real. There are two cases to consider: 1. You're an individual using BrowserBox standard. None of this affects you. Thanks to the polyform strict license, you can just use it for personal use. 2. You're a company operating legally. None of this affects you either; you won't have any problems with the license changes. There is no bait and switch here. The license changes are clear, and there's a considerable amount of time since it changed. The only people who would have a problem with the changes are those trying to illegally use the old licenses with the new code--but before this thread came up, I would have thought there weren't a huge number of people trying to do that. Anyway, this "fraudulent license use", is what I mean when I say "invalid and revoked." We would actively try to stop them from doing that. We understand if the language used has confused people or if it has been misinterpreted. The language could have been more clear, and I apologize for not making it so. However, any language we've used when changing the license always just means we're changing it--and trying to give notice of changing it!--and means that the previous licenses are invalid and revoked from that point forward. We never said it's retroactive. And when we talk of "previously released versions" we mean that the new license does not just apply to source code, but to the binaries, NPM packages, and so on, as we go on to specify. Again, from that point forward. And again, language could be more clear, we're never saying it's retroactive--and we're doing nothing wrong by changing the license. So please stop trying to say that we are! So now that we've clarified that, the more troubling thing is as follows: People have just gone crazy here, which is weird because the only ones who would be shitting themselves about this would be companies who are trying to illegally use old licenses with new code. But why would they be so dumb? And then so dumb to reveal their fear at their own illegality online? Well, I guess criminals are dumb. The old licenses, revoked and invalid for over a year, don't give you access to any of the new code, and don't give you access to Pro. There's a long way from the old code, to the new code, and an even longer way to Pro. We are not worried about these old licenses, we think it's a good thing that people have had in the past a variety of ways to integrate our journey's development snapshot, and continue to do so if they want to use the old stuff. It's just another part of the funnel, and is in line with our intention which we originally had to give people a sampler. But we changed the licenses to figure out a business model. But people are acting like this is a massive issue for us, but it's not: none of this affects our Pro revenue. And this old code is so far from that, people are not getting anything of the current value of that anyway. We're not worried about it, but people are acting like it's this massive thing, which is weird. So I think they're just projecting. Even if you actually believed we retroactively changed it somehow, you would be confident in the legal protection, so you wouldn't care...unless you were trying to illegally use old license with new code. So, nothing justifies the insane crazy level of abuse and fake accusations on this thread from other commenters. The only ones who would think this would be a problem, would be the ones using this illegally--so please shut the fuck up! Because you're just revealing yourselves, and we don't want to sue you. We don't want to have to. We're shocked, because before this thread we didn't know anyone was really trying to do that. I mean, we know there's always piracy, but we see these hysterical comments coming from people at companies in Canada, and it's really nuts. The hysteria surrounding this issue is a fake, crazy problem that people have invented, which is baffling--because it only seems to reveals they want to do something illegal with the code, which is crazy. Why have people gone berserk on this thread? I don't know. The main point to remember is that you wouldn't care unless you were doing something illegal with this. Perhaps the illegality of what they're trying to do is what's making people nervous, and that's what we're seeing from these hysterical commenters.
    - endigma 4y ago
      I suppose "going nuts" in this context is me letting you know that your desire to prevent use of your old commits under your old license is not legally possible, Not sure why you feel the need to turn a bunch of info I gave you into fuel for a flamewar. I haven't considered and won't ever consider using your software, it's completely out of my wheelhouse (as you sort of tried to use as an insult?) I just commented to try and help you understand the license situation. Good luck with your company.
      - graderjs 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - graderjs 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - graderjs 4y ago
    So after saying it's "not worth using", "license entrapment", "clickbait"-- I mean you sound really unhappy about this, you sound super guilty ... like you hate that you have to pay for this, and you're super nervous about the legal stuff. Why all the crazy projections otherwise? So anyway, then you go on, to diminish our work as only "pptr on ws", and lie that me standing up for myself and our company against that is "snark" -- then you continue to explain our business to us: > ... 1000/seat ... don't care to self-host things ... You have no idea about our market. You really have no idea at all. You certainly have no idea what I wanna do, but you have no idea what our customers want. They don't wanna trust this critical security thing, their browsing activity to a SaaS provider, right? That's sometimes a difficult sell. Or impossible. So they would rather, or they need to, have it on their own systems. Plus, you can get cost reductions: perpetual is 5 years of updates. That's 200 per year, just dollars over SaaS, and we can customize it way more than SaaS. > ... I won't give shitload money ... Yeah, you won't give it because you don't have the money, right? That's what you're upset about. Maybe you're just guilty that you're using the license wrong, and scared now you got to pay. Look, maybe this was all an innocent mistake, and you've overreacted. OK, it happens. I get it. I mean, it doesn't excuse saying all these crazy lies but I'm sure it seems scary to find out you were doing something illegal and you didn't mean to. If that's the case, and you're just blowing up over this, I encourage you to get in touch with us: support@dosycorp.com and you can sort it out--we can figure something out--before it becomes a big problem. OK? So don't worry. Like I said, we're not interested in litigating, there's no business model in that. That only alienates customers. But I mean if you're just coming on here for a fight, and have no idea about this, look man, we don't deal with abusive customers anyway, we don't want your money. You don't have it, but we don't want it. So it's not a problem. There's enough good people who have money, and this is not a shitload anyway. Thank you! Best of luck. I look forward to your email if that's the case :p xx ;p :D

endigma 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
graderjs 4y ago
[flagged]
- graderjs 4y ago
  General Comment to anyone finding this thread: We need to make something very, very clear because it seems people have just gone nuts here, so: time to clarify. Ever since the top comment here about licenses changing, people have gone crazy on this thread. This reaction is misguided because the issue they're reacting to doesn't exist; it's not real. There are two cases to consider: 1. You're an individual using BrowserBox standard. None of this affects you. Thanks to the polyform strict license, you can just use it for personal use. 2. You're a company operating legally. None of this affects you either; you won't have any problems with the license changes. There is no bait and switch here. The license changes are clear, and there's a considerable amount of time since it changed. The only people who would have a problem with the changes are those trying to illegally use the old licenses with the new code--but before this thread came up, I would have thought there weren't a huge number of people trying to do that. Anyway, this "fraudulent license use", is what I mean when I say "invalid and revoked." We would actively try to stop them from doing that. We understand if the language used has confused people or if it has been misinterpreted. The language could have been more clear, and I apologize for not making it so. However, any language we've used when changing the license always just means we're changing it--and trying to give notice of changing it!--and means that the previous licenses are invalid and revoked from that point forward. We never said it's retroactive. And when we talk of "previously released versions" we mean that the new license does not just apply to source code, but to the binaries, NPM packages, and so on, as we go on to specify. Again, from that point forward. And again, language could be more clear, we're never saying it's retroactive--and we're doing nothing wrong by changing the license. So please stop trying to say that we are! So now that we've clarified that, the more troubling thing is as follows: People have just gone crazy here, which is weird because the only ones who would be shitting themselves about this would be companies who are trying to illegally use old licenses with new code. But why would they be so dumb? And then so dumb to reveal their fear at their own illegality online? Well, I guess criminals are dumb. The old licenses, revoked and invalid for over a year, don't give you access to any of the new code, and don't give you access to Pro. There's a long way from the old code, to the new code, and an even longer way to Pro. We are not worried about these old licenses, we think it's a good thing that people have had in the past a variety of ways to integrate our journey's development snapshot, and continue to do so if they want to use the old stuff. It's just another part of the funnel, and is in line with our intention which we originally had to give people a sampler. But we changed the licenses to figure out a business model. But people are acting like this is a massive issue for us, but it's not: none of this affects our Pro revenue. And this old code is so far from that, people are not getting anything of the current value of that anyway. We're not worried about it, but people are acting like it's this massive thing, which is weird. So I think they're just projecting. Even if you actually believed we retroactively changed it somehow, you would be confident in the legal protection, so you wouldn't care...unless you were trying to illegally use old license with new code. So, nothing justifies the insane crazy level of abuse and fake accusations on this thread from other commenters. The only ones who would think this would be a problem, would be the ones using this illegally--so please shut the fuck up! Because you're just revealing yourselves, and we don't want to sue you. We don't want to have to. We're shocked, because before this thread we didn't know anyone was really trying to do that. I mean, we know there's always piracy, but we see these hysterical comments coming from people at companies in Canada, and it's really nuts. The hysteria surrounding this issue is a fake, crazy problem that people have invented, which is baffling--because it only seems to reveals they want to do something illegal with the code, which is crazy. Why have people gone berserk on this thread? I don't know. The main point to remember is that you wouldn't care unless you were doing something illegal with this. Perhaps the illegality of what they're trying to do is what's making people nervous, and that's what we're seeing from these hysterical commenters.
  - endigma 4y ago
    I suppose "going nuts" in this context is me letting you know that your desire to prevent use of your old commits under your old license is not legally possible, Not sure why you feel the need to turn a bunch of info I gave you into fuel for a flamewar. I haven't considered and won't ever consider using your software, it's completely out of my wheelhouse (as you sort of tried to use as an insult?) I just commented to try and help you understand the license situation. Good luck with your company.
    - graderjs 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - graderjs 4y ago
      [flagged]
- graderjs 4y ago
  So after saying it's "not worth using", "license entrapment", "clickbait"-- I mean you sound really unhappy about this, you sound super guilty ... like you hate that you have to pay for this, and you're super nervous about the legal stuff. Why all the crazy projections otherwise? So anyway, then you go on, to diminish our work as only "pptr on ws", and lie that me standing up for myself and our company against that is "snark" -- then you continue to explain our business to us: > ... 1000/seat ... don't care to self-host things ... You have no idea about our market. You really have no idea at all. You certainly have no idea what I wanna do, but you have no idea what our customers want. They don't wanna trust this critical security thing, their browsing activity to a SaaS provider, right? That's sometimes a difficult sell. Or impossible. So they would rather, or they need to, have it on their own systems. Plus, you can get cost reductions: perpetual is 5 years of updates. That's 200 per year, just dollars over SaaS, and we can customize it way more than SaaS. > ... I won't give shitload money ... Yeah, you won't give it because you don't have the money, right? That's what you're upset about. Maybe you're just guilty that you're using the license wrong, and scared now you got to pay. Look, maybe this was all an innocent mistake, and you've overreacted. OK, it happens. I get it. I mean, it doesn't excuse saying all these crazy lies but I'm sure it seems scary to find out you were doing something illegal and you didn't mean to. If that's the case, and you're just blowing up over this, I encourage you to get in touch with us: support@dosycorp.com and you can sort it out--we can figure something out--before it becomes a big problem. OK? So don't worry. Like I said, we're not interested in litigating, there's no business model in that. That only alienates customers. But I mean if you're just coming on here for a fight, and have no idea about this, look man, we don't deal with abusive customers anyway, we don't want your money. You don't have it, but we don't want it. So it's not a problem. There's enough good people who have money, and this is not a shitload anyway. Thank you! Best of luck. I look forward to your email if that's the case :p xx ;p :D