top | item 25845749

(no title)

QuadDamaged | 5 years ago

been bit by another audio engine that had the same license and pulled a bait and switch. No thanks.

discuss

order

cesaref|5 years ago

Hi, one of the developers here.

How would it be possible to allay your concerns? I think we've tried to be as clear as possible with our intentions - how could we rule out such possibilities with our license agreement?

an_d_rew|5 years ago

Sadly, I’ve been bitten by this before, too, and even if I love the product, I stay away.

It isn’t that I don’t trust you or your intentions now, it’s that intentions (and requirements) change.

You asked about allaying fears. Personally for me this means actually take-to-the-bank licensing that I could get through a legal audit, even if hypothetical.

Talk of “secret sauce” and future closed source and IP licensing of future maybe-must-have magic... that’s way too much future risk for me.

An example of what I think is good licensing is JUCE (https://juce.com). Everything from “free” to “paid with support”, all open source… but the point is I always know exactly where I stand legally, what I can and cannot do... and what I can and cannot do in the FUTURE.

devenblake|5 years ago

Disclaimer: *I'm not your target audience*; I don't plan to use your product even if you made it public domain.

I never want to agree to an EULA before starting to develop something outside of a professional setting. That's an immediate dealbreaker for me. But even if I did - I wouldn't be able to disassemble or reverse engineer your software (2.2)? Also - why are there so many clauses in the EULA telling me to obey really specific laws? Aren't these redundant to section 2?

naewonawonga|5 years ago

If there's no mechanism to bind those intentions to the intellectual property, what you're building is just another time bomb which will eventually detonate at the expense of your users.