On Tue, 21 Feb 1995 21:26:51 -0600 "Laurence A. Bates"
<[log in to unmask]> said:
>Sorry Eric but I cannot agree with your claim that the beta period had
>not ended. Read your own email...
Laurence,
This is getting really childish. Unfortunately I cannot let you off the
hook without setting a precedent that L-Soft doesn't really mind if
people violate their beta agreement, so I have no option but to continue
this ridiculous discussion. I can't answer in private because it would
make it look like I agree that L-Soft was wrong.
>Subject: End of beta
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>To: Multiple recipients of list LSTSRV-W <[log in to unmask]>
>
>With the end of the month (and LAK period) here is an update on the
>current status of the beta test and release of the Windows NT version of
>LISTSERV.
>
>About a week ago, development (my group) declared the beta to be over.
Indeed, in this message I declared that the beta testing phase was over,
that is, that the technical tests had concluded to our satisfaction. I
did not announce that the product had been released. In fact I announced
that the product was NOT going to be released for another month. Prices
become public when a product is announced or released, not when the
development team decides that the product has passed the acceptance
tests. To quote the beta testing agreement, here is when your obligation
not to make public comments was going to end:
3. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENTS. (...) Once the product is released,
you can of course say what you want about the final version. (...)
Once the product is *released*, not once the tests are over. I was
telling you explicitly that the product was not going to be released for
another month, that we did not have a price list, and that beta sites
only would be allowed to purchase under a temporary price list. That
seems a lot clearer and more explicit to me than a vague conclusion that,
since the tests are over, then in spite of the explicit statement that
the product won't be released for a month, it will in fact be released
within 5 days and this is so option that there is no need to confirm it
with L-Soft.
Incidentally, by posting a copy of the LSTSRV-W message in public, you
have violated point 2 of the beta agreement, for which there is no
release clause. It may seem unfair that L-Soft can do what it wants
whereas you must obtain L-Soft's formal permission to repost the material
L-Soft posted to LSTSRV-W, but beta agreements aren't supposed to be
fair, they're for the vendor's protection. You'll be hard pressed to find
a beta agreement where the vendor doesn't keep the sole prerogative to
publish the information that it disclosed to the beta sites in
confidence. You didn't have to join the beta if you felt the conditions
were unfair. Noone was forcing you. But you did join the beta and L-Soft
was expecting you to uphold the agreement.
Anyway, it looks like you're only making your case worse with every
rebuttal. I also note that you have again carefully avoided to address
the issue of your misrepresentation of our pricing policy. I don't know
Laurence, most people are willing to apologize when they misrepresent a
company's offerings in public. L-Soft isn't going to admit that L-Soft
screwed up and that your comments were perfectly legitimate, simply
because that isn't the case. You can apologize now or we can escalate the
incident, it's entirely up to you. Whatever you decide, I do not intend
to continue this discussion on the list, having now noted L-Soft's
continued and steadfast belief that you have (i) misrepresented our
pricing policy in public and (ii) violated sections 2 and 3 of your beta
agreement.
Eric
|
