[driverloader] Licensing regression between versions 2.28 and 2.29

[Eric Herget]

Duchesne Family wrote:
>> Since it was your purchase of a Linksys NIC that got you the TI 
>> chipset, which got you the Linuxant license, you should be calling 
>> Linksys to discuss this issue.
> 
> I did call both Linksys and TI before contacting Linuxant. It is pretty 
> clear that they both could not care less about me (this is a niche 
> market, otherwise why would TI not renew the agreement?). The reason I'm 
> contacting Linuxant as a fallback is because they are much smaller, and 
> thus they are supposed to be much more responsible towards their customers.

I see... You didn't get resolution with the company who is supposed to 
support you, so you come here and trash the "little guy".  If you went 
to the other two companies (you should ONLY be going to Linksys) with 
the same whiny entitlement story, slinging false accusations, then you 
deserved to get no "care" from them.

Your idea that they are "supposed to be much more responsible towards 
their customers" because they are smaller is wrong on so many levels.
1) In this case, TI was their customer, NOT YOU!  They owe you nothing. 
  You unjustifiably trashed them with false accusations.
2) Smaller companies *may* be able to change direction more quickly than 
a large company, but where on Earth do you get the idea that smaller 
companies are "supposed" to be more responsible?  I'm not aware of any 
laws, regulations, best practices, or even rules of thumb that require a 
smaller company to be more responsible.  This is idiotic reasoning that 
you have made up to rationalize the validity of your ridiculous position.


>> You "paid" for a Linksys NIC containing TI chips, which included a 
>> license that entitled you to the (at that time) current release of 
>> driverloader.  Revert to 2.28 and you'll have what you are entitled 
>> to.  Money isn't flowing from TI to Linuxant any more, yet you 
>> unexplainably expect Linuxant to continue development on your behalf 
>> at no charge?
> 
> I work for the software industry, and I know a thing or two about what 
> it means to buy software.

I also work in the software industry developing large scale, 
carrier-class systems.  For example, I lead development on a mobile 
application billing and provisioning system now deployed at major 
wireless carriers such as O2, Verizon and Cingular.  We have purchased 
and/or partnered with 3rd party vendors for several pieces of the 
solution.  IN NO CASE SHOULD MY CUSTOMERS CONTACT THESE 3RD PARTY 
VENDORS DIRECTLY.

> An important notion when you buy software is the notion of revenue 
> recognition, and software version. In particular, most companies in the 
> industry recognize their revenue (the money people pay for a license) 
> over the lifetime of the product they buy, instead of one lump sum 
> upfront. The lifetime of the product is usually defined in terms of 
> major version.

An important part of a contract is meeting your commitments detailed 
therein.  Once the contract is terminated, unless specified otherwise in 
the contract, you are no longer required to meet these commitments. 
Apparently the agreement with TI was that Linuxant would provide 
driverloader licenses.  Now the agreement is over, they are no longer 
committed to providing these licenses.  This is fundamentally simple 
logic that you can't seem to grasp.

An important notion of running a business is not wasting resources.  You 
are trashing this company because it is not wasting its resources on 
your ridiculous, whiny, irrational, baseless claims that they somehow 
"owe" you support on a product you did not purchase from them.

> When I bought my TI-based NIC, DriverLoader was already at version 2.x. 
> Version 2.29 is still major version 2, and that is why I believe that I 
> have paid for it, and that my license should still be valid. I would 
> understand that Linuxant would revoke my license when DriverLoader 3.0 
> comes around.

You can believe anything you wish.  However, what you are *actually* 
entitled to is so much different than what you *believe* you are 
entitled to.  You need to take this issue up with Linksys.  Not TI... 
Not Linuxant... Only Linksys.  Linuxant's responsibility is to TI in 
this case.  NOT YOU.

>> Fair?  You want Linuxant to spend their development resources to 
>> implement your suggested code enhancement
> 
> We are not talking about implementing a feature request here, we are 
> talking about fixing a bug in a product I paid for.

We are talking about you asking them to spend resources to do work to 
support you.  You want them to make your license work with a version of 
the product for which they are not required to make it work.  This is 
not a bug.  This is you trying to get a free license for something you 
are not entitled to, by falsly accusing Linuxant of stealing from 
customers and misleading customers.  Your position, argument and 
reasoning on this matter are completely ridiculous.

>> One last stab at the company, accusing it of some unethical deed, 
>> because you want a freebie.
> 
> Come on. I don't care about the money. We are talking about USD 20. It i 
> a question of principle.

A question of principle?  You apparently have none.  Linuxant owes you 
nothing, yet you are here trashing them.  What kind of principle is 
that?  The only place for you to get resolution to this matter is with 
Linksys.  Go talk to them about principles, you unscrupulous, lying, 
unethical cheat.

>>   The "aforementionned (sic) URL" leads to a dated document.  The date 
>> lets you know when the statements within were made.  There is nothing 
>> misleading about that.
> 
> What is misleading is that customers still think they can use TI-based 
> NICs out of the box with DriverLoader. There is nothing to tell them it 
> is no longer the case.

Hello... McFly...  I think they can use version 2.29 out of the box. 
Just like you can.

>> You have some responsibilities when you weild the power of the internet.
> 
> My responsibility here is to warn other potential customers that 
> Linuxant is not playing by the industry's rules.

You are hilarious.  Now you are making up "industry's rules" to 
rationalize your ridiculous position!  Please, provide a reference to 
the specific industry rules that require Linuxant to support a product 
sold by Linksys beyond the terms of a contract they have with yet 
another 3rd party supplier to Linksys.

Also, provide the reference to the procedure to seek resolution which 
includes falsely accusing said 3rd party vendor of stealing and 
misleading customers.  And now, by your own admission, you are doing 
this to "warn other potential customers" to stay away from Linuxant. 
Clearly, you are not the entity with principles in this case, nor have 
you shown any sense of responsibility.

Please go plead your pathetic case to Linksys.  Your whining, false 
accusations, illogical reasoning, and lies don't belong here.

Good bye.

E