JPG Flash Rotator (Not all source files given on purchase)

[khawaib]

Hello All,

I bought this module from JPG Flash Rotator but did not get all source files from seller. Upon asking seller said the product has little misleading in joomla.org.

I also left negative review for the product in extensions at joomla.org which never appeared in reviews.

Does Joomla only show positive reviews and not all negative reviews. How does that work?

Khawaib Ahmed.

[brian]

Are you talking about http://extensions.joomla.org/component/ ... Itemid,35/

I didnt see anything about it including the source

[Tonie]

Moving to Extensions Directory forum

[ot2sen]

Hi khawaib,

This sounds like an issues better solved by the supplier of that particular module.

I bought this module from JPG Flash Rotator but did not get all source files from seller. Upon asking seller said the product has little misleading in joomla.org.

When checking the URLs for the free and for the unbranded versions, there was no where written that source would be included.
If you want to buy the source then it would be better to contact the developer directly.

I also left negative review for the product in extensions at joomla.org which never appeared in reviews.

Does Joomla only show positive reviews and not all negative reviews. How does that work?

Khawaib Ahmed.

Reviews: Any valid review, that would be negative or positive, will be approved and published, if the rules for reviewing has been followed.

You submitted a negative comment - not a review. There is a difference 

[khawaib]

Thnx for quick reply.

But in description it says;
License: Other open source / Free license

All I mentioned in the review was that source files are not provided when it was purchased.

Khawaib Ahmed

[brian]

I think this highlites the fact that the range of available licence options at the site are perhaps a little limited. Maybe the JED team could consider expanding the list and asking the 1300+ exisiting extension owners to re-evaluate their classification

[LorenzoG]

But in description it says;
License: Other open source / Free license

It's a general label saying that the extension is either "other open source" license or a "free license". Meaning that the extension can be obtained for free.
In this particular case, it's the second, you can get the extension "branded" for free. They have also an unbranded version for $20.

Maybe we could create a "branded free/commercial" license label since this isn't so uncommon. However, I have to talk with the other Editors about what they think.