Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
moral behaviour in the shareware industry
urlwolf:
News: it seems that a refund is on the way for #3.
However, I'd prefer to be able to use the app! I couldn't find anything similar. And it is pretty obscure, so now I don't think there'd be w4r3z copy. Well, back to searching for the perfect app... or maybe time to do a similar ahk hack would be faster ?
f0dder:
Well, mention the app and perhaps somebody can find a replacement for it, as well as warning others to not purchase it?
urlwolf:
Ok, but be warned:
(1) the site really looks dangerously like "deadware inside". I should have not bought it by the looks of the site, but the app is really neat.
(2) The author may come back from the dead anytime and send me the license (so don't flame her/him just yet):
http://www.crypto-central.com/html/timekeeper.html
Darwin:
Don't beat yourself up, urlwolf. This is prominent at the bottom of the page:
Page version 2.20c - Updated 28 June 2006
--- End quote ---
Of course, this is at the bottom of the version history page:
Page version 2.10 - 8 May 2002
--- End quote ---
Still, I've got my fingers crossed for you!
Darwin:
Even though you've indicated that it's a dead/non issue, I'm really curious about what led to your posing scenario two? I've been hasty in buying shareware in the past only to find that there are free alternatives available. While annoying, it's never occurred to me to blame the developer. Rather, I (try to) put it down to experience and hope to learn from it. So, again, what's the "history" behind number two?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version