Re: license
Re: license
- Subject: Re: license
- From: Michael DeMan <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:44:20 -0800
At the end of the day, I would not worry to much.
The only significant part of the license is attached below, and any
common-sense judge will interpret in the same way we do.
WO Works, thats what matters.
I started at NeXT as late-comer in 1995/6 and had to watch the entire
enterprise thing go in the hole and am damn glad to see Apple pulling
it out again. We use WO for our dumb little LLCs up here with a
single license on a single platform with a single CPU just to make
sure we can never be f'd over.
At the end of the day, if you work for a big corp that needs SLAs and
such, Apple will never provide that (at least not now) on their
WebObjects platform. Use WO, you're on your own. The best I can
tell, there has barely even been any regression testing on new
releases until the past 12 months or so, before that the entire
corporate attitude was 'throw them to the wolves', which I don't mind
either.
We have one WO 5.x license for MacOSX Server and one 4.x->5.x license
on a CPU basis.
At the end of the day, just realize this (to the best of my
knowledge) is not a well supported product and more than likely Apple
will refuse anything more than a 'shrinkwrap agreement' to avoid
being sued.
In summary, do thou wilt.
On Nov 11, 2005, at 5:14 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Apple-labeled computer
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >license (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: license (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: license (From: Miguel Arroz <email@hidden>) |