Re: Do you consider this software licensing practice ethical? I am furious!

On Dec 29, 3:39 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tekfet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
Sorry, got part way thru replying to this and
then got sidetracked and didnt get back to it.
tekfet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
tekfet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote

It is only fair for me to let you know that I have discussed this
with EQ and have not been offered a solution to format my primary
partition, install EQ6, and not use an additional activation.

Only because you didnt ask the question properly and ask whether,
if you uninstalled EQ6 before you formatted the partition on which
EQ6 is installed, you would solve the problem with wasting an activation.

Rod, the question should refer to the PRIMARY
partition, not whichever partition EQ6 is installed on!

Thats not correct either. #2 and #3 cover that explicitly.
#6, #7, and #10 are the only items that mention formatting explicitly- #2 and #3 do not.

#2 and #3 do however explicitly cover the partition and drive that EQ6 is installed on.

I agree. #2 and #3 do not, however, explicitly mention formatting!

This is another clear distinction that you must keep in mind

Nope, there is no evidence that the partition that is formatted actually matters.


Each time formatting is mentioned there is a reference to a partition.
(#6, #7, and #10)

(the other being that we are talking about formatting
the primary partition, not the secondary).

Formatting is irrelevant to what uses an activation.


Even though item 10 states that formatting the primary partition uses
and activation, you are claiming that formatting is irrelevant to what
uses an activation?

So you'll invest the time in replying to this thread, accuse me
of asking the wrong question when talking to EQ myself, but
refuse to take 30 seconds of your time to send a one line email
to prove to me and the rest of this newsgroup the you are right?

I've already proved that by rubbing your nose in what the various scenarios cover.

You've proven nothing but you could easily verify what you think is
true. You choose not to.

You might also wish to let them know that Lu is unaware of this and
is allowing customers to return the software over this issue but I
won't mind letting them know if they do indeed confirm your belief.

Its not my belief, its what is explictly covered in #2 and #3.

Regardless of what you believe EQ6's activation chart states,
the individuals at EQ interpret their own policy differently.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

I substantiated the claim to myself with a phone call. You choose not
to believe that I did so accurately. You could verify it but you
choose not to do that too.

And when every single individual who has chose to comment has rubbed
YOUR nose in the fact that you cant manage to work out the basics for
yourself, you'll have to pardon us if we dont bother with your *** any longer.


Every single individual eh? There's a claim that's easy to refute:

http://techfettish.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/what-others-think-about-electricquilts-licensing-practices/

You can be as furious as you like, clearly no one actually cares.

I eagerly await more personal attacks from you. Every once in a while
it's fun to get in the mud with a pig.

-tek
.