Forum Posts Feed
Re: The place of ADM among outliners and pims
< Next Message | Back to archived message list | Previous Message >
Note: This message is from the outliners.com archive kindly provided by Dave Winer.
Outliners.com Message ID: 5223
Posted by daly_de_gagne
2006-02-10 15:57:36
Stephen, most respectfully, I think you’re close to going over the top with your last post.
Stephen: The difference between you and me is that it would equally have colored my impression if this had been done to someone else.
You have not a shred of evidence that that is a difference between you and me. I am as ticked off by poor treatment of others as much as I am by own mistreatment.
Stephen: I think the development environment of outlining applications is a fit topic for this list.
I would agree. No one said it was not.
Stephen: The ADM group is a _private_ group. I know this because it is the position developer Sommer took. I said if I can’t participate in the Yahoo group, then I want my money back for ADM, because this public group is the main avenue for support and latest versions. Sommer refused this demand, on the ground that the Yahoo group is a purely private group run by Jan, where ADM makes advance versions public as a service to the users who are members of the group, and it has no official relation to ADM whatsoever and owners of a license to ADM have no right as such to use this group. On this basis he refused to defend Jan’s conduct in excluding me; it was a purely _private_ matter.
There are two ADM groups: the development group and the fan group. Both are private in the sense of having private ownership. However, and the sense I was using, the former is private in that it is not posted publicly for anyone to join, whereas the latter group, Jan’s group, is posted publicly and is for anyone to join.
Re the rights of having a software license: I do not understand how having a software licence necessarily entitles one to have access to the beta software of the product so licensed. A software license licenses what it licenses, to wit the right to have on your machine and to use in the manner intended a specific software product, subject to sometimes stated other conditions such as the number of machines and/or users the license covers.
In terms of making beta software available, a developer has the right to do so however it chooses, whether on its main site, whether by advising existing licesned users by email, whether by setting up a specific internal group, or a public (albeit privately owned) group such as Jan’s, or some combination of the aforegoing.
There is precedent formaking betas available through groups, blogs, etc. that have no official connection with the developer.
I suspect the reason Eric did not defend you was because he was still feeling pissed off at you following the discussion that had occurred when you were a member of the development group.
Stephen: People should be given the information that allows them to conclude that the ADM development group is not a genuine commercial undertaking, but more of a cult.
A cult? You mean like scientology, or Amway, or the Moonies? What is the evidence that it is not a genuine commercial undertaking? The development group itself is part of the ADM commercial operation and is owned I presume by Eric or Arne. Jan group, the fan group, is a privately owned list open to public membership. I find it stretches my credulity somewhat to see either group as a cult. Jan exercised the right of an owner to kick you off the list. What do I think of his decision? I thought and still think it was a bad decision, but he had the right to make it.
Stephen: This _corrupt_ waffling on what ownership rights an ADM license gives a user is part of the scam that is ADM. It not only is corrupt; it is an environment that corrupts the members, as others, like you, parrot these hypocritical justifications.
What makes this waffling, as opposed to some other waffling, corrupt? And have you even established that thereis waffling? If you have evidence of waffling, let’s see it. When you start alleging that ADM is a scam on the basis of perceived waffling, I suspect it is a good thing we are not at bar. Especially when in the next sentence you blatantly assert that ADM is corrupt, and further allege that such corruption is of the nature that it also corrupts the members of the group.
Again with all due respect, I submit that I am not parroting any hypocritical juustification; the points I am making are my own, and I am sorely responsible for the numerous shortcomings that you see in them.
For my part, may I suggest that your analysis is in fact largely coloured by the fact that there was a conflict of personality and style, triggered by comments you made, and that as a result you were no longer able to participate in either group. I do not, and have never, justified the decisions that lead to your exclusion. However, no matter how unfair and hurtful that may be to you, it does not justify the indiscriminate throwing around of words such as corrupt, scam, and cult.
Daly