Sensitive review claims need to be confirmed with developer

[winuser]

I am posting here, because each time I have used the 'Report' or 'Reply' feature at the JED, I am always ignored. No email, no update, nothing.

User leetorrens submitted a review for J! Reactions that needs to be revised for an important factual error.

It is explanied in the J! Reactions FAQ--by way of example--that the cost of copyright infringment in the United States is $100,000. This is the statutory amount (per instance) set by the courts. It's not a number that I made up. But in the review, the user says that removing the product LINK costs $100,000, as if I am out to sue people. No, it is deleting the COPYRIGHT that can bring you some legal trouble. Deleting the link is a license issue.

Second, has it not been determined already that users cannot use reviews to complain about license terms and ownership issues? The review in question is a perfect case of why to avoid such topics. The review was published promptly (according to the date), yet it is full of very sensitive and contentious claims that should have raised a red flag. You and I know (from past experience) that contentious reviews for other commenting systems are not so easy to publish 

Please advise. I am genuinely confused by what appears to be mixed signals and double standards.

[brian]

The problem really is that you have listed the extension as being an open source or free license.

The restrictions you place (which are your rite) in your license agreement  prevent it from being either open or free under any definition I know.

[winuser]

The "Free" designation is most certainly correct for the Free Edition of J! Reactions, lol. There are only 4 or 5 options for developers.

But really, this has nothing to do with the review error.

[brian]

The "Free" designation is most certainly correct for the Free Edition of J! Reactions, lol. There are only 4 or 5 options for developers.

Only if you define free as being free of cost. I do not and neither do people such as the free software foundation.

In addition it fails to meet the definition of open source as defined here http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html

[absalom]

The "Free" designation is most certainly correct for the Free Edition of J! Reactions, lol. There are only 4 or 5 options for developers.

But really, this has nothing to do with the review error.

How can it be free when the licence even stops developers fixing your free product to take it in a direction that is requested by a client ?

I second Brian's comments about it not being open source. Since you seek to gain litigation revenue from derivative works (as per the nature of the "Free" licence), it is a closed source, closed environment app (which means, at the end of the day, you have a two stage commercial licencing junket/cash cow, thanks to the licence traps you've included in the product).

I will still need to create a derivative work of it for my clientbase in order to satisfy my market, and if that violates the licence, perhaps it's time the licence got re-evaluated.

[winuser]

You know, I was hoping that someone like otsen would answer or assist me with correcting the review error 

Since, neither of you are JED mods nor the person who wrote the review, why don't you mind your own business.

I will still need to create a derivative work of it for my clientbase in order to satisfy my market, and if that violates the licence, perhaps it's time the licence got re-evaluated.

Wrong. It's time for you to roll up your sleeves, write your own software, and stop whining like a spoiled brat. You claim to be a Joomla! consultant. Where's your skill? Waiting for others to do your work for you?

You know why I wrote J! Reactions? Because I was fed up with what was available. J! Reactions is not open source, and there is NO claim that it is open source at the site where the software is downloaded. It is published under two editions. One is free; one costs $$$.

The Professional Editions is NOT available for download, and it never has been.

Of the four or five licensing descriptions available to developers, the "Other open source / Free license" is the most accurate option to use  for the Free Edition of J! Reactions.

Hint : Don't knock quality software that is provided to users for free. There are HUNDREDS of titles that "require purchase" (i.e., NOT FREE).

Which part is confusing you?

[absalom]

Since, neither of you are JED mods nor the person who wrote the review, why don't you mind your own business.

Whatever happened to good customer service, Stefano ?

Wrong. It's time for you to roll up your sleeves, write your own software, and stop whining like a spoiled brat. You claim to be a Joomla! consultant. Where's your skill? Waiting for others to do your work for you?

My skill is in making good products better... and that's where your good "Free" product will be taken in a direction you haven't even seen (let alone considered).  Consider this a test case for your licence.

You know why I wrote J! Reactions? Because I was fed up with what was available. J! Reactions is not open source, and there is NO claim that it is open source at the site where the software is downloaded. It is published under two editions. One is free; one costs $$$.

However the source code was freely distributable (up to 1.2.0.. which is now pulled from your site) and under all recognised derivative rights laws around the globe, that means I can modify it if you're not supporting it in the direction I need it to go.  I had to discuss a similar issue with Phil Taylor back in the Mambo days with his commercial componetry and he was much more approachable on this topic.

Hint : Don't knock quality software that is provided to users for free. There are HUNDREDS of titles that "require purchase" (i.e., NOT FREE).

And those hundred commercial ones are usually compressed and encrypted with something like Zend or IonCube.. meaning I have less chance of purchasing them than dealing with some source code found on the Net. Guess what ? I found yours.

Which part is confusing you?

The part where you claim derivative rights aren't allowed as part of your licence structure, when all relevant commercial law and copyright law in the UK, EU, US and Australia allows a developer to create a derivative work based on some manner of source code access.

That's what's confusing. The trap within your licence is that it doesn't even acknowledge copyright laws (particularly derivative rights) across the globe.

[winuser]

Your interpretation of "source code" is going to bring you some trouble 

I also write Windows applications. The "source code" is compiled for use under the Windows operating system. J! Reactions is PHP script code, similarly written for its intended platform. The fact that I don't compile it (why would I?) to frustrate people like you is incidental.

Nice try, though.

[absalom]

Your interpretation of "source code" is going to bring you some trouble 

Like I said, it's a test case for the legality of your licence.

I also write Windows applications. The "source code" is compiled for use under the Windows operating system. J! Reactions is PHP script code, similarly written for its intended platform. The fact that I don't compile it (why would I?) to frustrate people like you is incidental.

Instead of attacking me personally, why don't you do actually show how your licence falls in step with derivative rights laws around the globe ?

If it doesn't fall in step, derivative rights laws take precidence. If it falls in step, then you might have some ground to stand on.

Copyright and attribution will not be harmed, Stefano. The significant changes and revisions in coding structures preclude that there will be copyright held by dual parties (Phil and I came to a similar understanding back in the Mambo days concerning copyright when I had to customise and support one of his commercial products). It's just on the issue of derivative works that your licence makes no sense.

[ot2sen]

I am posting here, because each time I have used the 'Report' or 'Reply' feature at the JED, I am always ignored. No email, no update, nothing.

Hi winuser,

For a start I made above quote to get back on topic here 

No one are ignored. All incoming reports, reviews and developer replies are being read and then either aproved or rejected.
We have a work in progress for providing feedback when a review, reply or report is rejected/solved.

For your 'review report' and 'developer reply' for this particular review, it could be that I lost track of where I was in the JED administration and then took the 'review report' for being a 'developer reply' and thought I approved your reply when actually just setting report to solved...  If thats the case, then please accept my apology 
Luckily, you did submit a 'developer reply' for same review yesterday, and this one has been published.

We will take an extra view at the review, too see if it contain any incorrect info that the reviewer could have an interest in adjusting.