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