Sandbox

I just did a review for jReactions and submitted it accidently under Joomla! Pack (com_jpack) instead.. Any chance of reassigning it?

Hi absalom,

Review rejected 

On what grounds ?

Providing caveat emptor regarding the licencing for an otherwise good product is still a review.

Just rejected the one submitted for wrong extension.

You are allowed to submit a review for the right extension though 

ot2sen wrote:Just rejected the one submitted for wrong extension.

You are allowed to submit a review for the right extension though 

Umm. I no longer have the content.. Can't you just change the extension id in the db submission?

absalom wrote:Umm. I no longer have the content.. Can't you just change the extension id in the db submission?

Sent you a pm with the original content.

Thanks

I'll get to it tomorrow or on the weekend.. the mambot state management is causing me unending grief at the moment.

absalom wrote:Providing caveat emptor regarding the licencing for an otherwise good product is still a review.

"Caveat emptor" implies that some critical information is being withheld from users, which is false and could be intepreted as slander (depending on how you represent yourself).

Or, are you merely complaining about the license because you don't like the terms? That type of review would have to be rejected according to the guidelines. I think the moderators have explained the need for reviews to speak on the following points: installation, compatibility, bugs, and features.

Yes? 

The terms are more than a little restrictive.. and almost beyond vendor lockin (MS got themselves sued for OEM vendor locks on contracts and licencing, so there is established precident).

The licencing is part of the features.. which is why everybody despises Microsoft and their EULA (which is, of course, a licence). The product may be functionally excellent, but from a client's perspective who needs to have the product delivered in a certain way, the amount of lock in is beyond a joke (rights to derivative works are removed, liability rests with the end user, software is provided without warranty even though payment is required - contravening all know competition and business laws I know of in the US, UK, EU and Australia)

Seeing as Lawrence has made his point I see no reason for resubmitting the review, or at least the parts that disagree with the JReviews License. The rest, be they good or bad so long as they constitute a review we'll gladly list them, but comments on the license system don't form part of a review and would probably have to be edited out (if I've read both sides correctly, and I think I have).

Lawrence and Winuser, you're both capable of communicating elloquently and within the bounds of the rules of this site,  so please don't make our jobs harder by giving us reviews you know we'll have to edit/reject. Discuss it like Gentlemen, ta.

Vimes wrote:Seeing as Lawrence has made his point I see no reason for resubmitting the review, or at least the parts that disagree with the JReviews License. The rest, be they good or bad so long as they constitute a review we'll gladly list them, but comments on the license system don't form part of a review and would probably have to be edited out (if I've read both sides correctly, and I think I have).

Lawrence and Winuser, you're both capable of communicating elloquently and within the bounds of the rules of this site,  so please don't make our jobs harder by giving us reviews you know we'll have to edit/reject. Discuss it like Gentlemen, ta.

Will do.

I may still resubmit it in a revised format anyway (minus the licencing stuff). It's just I had, at one point, to create a derivative work off Phil Taylor's commercial products for Mambo for client specs which was resolved through amicable negotation with Phil.. and I'm facing the same dilemma here.. (this time with a much more restrictive licence than Phil's commercial licence).