PaulR:
What you say appears to imply that, in your view, as long as a decision is made by a company, it is, by definition, a good decision and that those adversely affected by it or concerned that it might adversely affect the future of the company should mind their manners and avoid registering their upset or suggesting reconsideration of a decision they think to be wrong or unfair.
As you have repeatedly stated, you are not upset or angry. You certainly have every right to express your contentment. But, the fact that you are content, does not mean that all those who do not share in your contentment are ignorant, stupid or ill-mannered. I would submit that any reasonably objective observer of this thread would note that it evidences quite a great deal of upset and anger on the part of a good number of people - -both those affected by the change in policy and those, like myself, who are not personally affected by it. Why is that? You seem to suggest that people are motivated only by petty self-interest. Yet that doesnāt explain why there are people like myself who have no immediate practical stake in this argument take the time to comment upon it. Could it be that some perceive this decision as a mistake that may have a long-term negative impact on VSLās business? Could it be that some have enormous respect for VSL, its products, its level of service and its uniquely collaborative culture and want its business to thrive, but fear that a wrong-headed policy may threaten all that it has achieved and could achieve?
You have said that you find these expressions of upset āshameful.ā Yet, they are simply a response to what many perceive as a breach of promises that VSL repeatedly made, in its advertising, and, as noted by an earlier poster, by Herb himself on these forums. The most casual observer of the human condition and of history canāt help but conclude that, in every form of relationship, personal, business or diplomatic, breaches of promise arouse strong feelings and may have large consequences - - and are recognized as a serious matter in the law. Hence, in every country, there is a large body of contract law and there is also international law regarding agreements made between nations.
What would you say if, taking their cue from VSL regarding the finite nature of promises, those who purchased licenses for the Pro Edition or Horizon series, argued that they should no longer be bound by the terms of the license originally agreed to and decided - - using some version of the āwhatās good for the goose is good for the ganderā argument - - that it was now OK to sell their libraries? (Of course, I, explicitly and strongly, advise against this course of action.) I have no doubt that you would think that people who made this argument were wrong because they were breaking the terms of a contract to which they had agreed. You might argue that the promises made and implied by VSL in its advertising and by Herb on these forums do not have same force as the clickwrap licenses that accompany the VSL libraries. But, if you argue that a company has the right to breach promises when it finds them inconvenient to keep, how would you argue that its customers do not have a similar right? Is it that, in your view, companies have rights regarding contracts, explicit or implied, that individuals do not have? VSL says that unforeseen changes in circumstance have compelled it to revise its update policies. However, the revision of these policies creates a changed circumstance for VSL's customers. If one party to a contract abrogates part of that contract, is the other party to the contract still bound by it? How, exactly, would you resolve this?
As I noted in an earlier posting, Microsoft enabled the labeling of some computers as āVista capableā when, in fact they were arguably not so capable and this questionable labeling has become the subject a class action lawsuit against Microsoft in the United States Federal courts. In other words the court has held that merely labeling a computer as āVista capable,ā may have the force of a contractual agreement. Should you want to familiarize yourself with the basics of contract law in the U.S., visit:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul03.htm
The answer to all this lies, I think, neither in wasteful and destructive lawsuits, nor in irate customers taking it upon themselves to breach their contractual obligations to VSL, but in working out some kind of mutually satisfactory compromise. As to whether VSL would appear āweak,ā if it reconsidered its decision, I think you are mistaken. When Apple lowered the price of the iPhone by $200 only 68 days after the initial release of the iPhone, there was a major outcry from early adopters (including Appleās co-found Steve Wozniak). Eventually, Apple recognized that it had made a mistake and offered a rebate program. Although there was no explicit or implied contract regarding price stability between Apple and early adopters of the iPhone, it appears that Apple decided it would not be in its long-term interest to alienate a significant group of loyal customers. In the view of most observers, Apple did not appear, āweak,ā on the contrary, it appeared intelligent enough and āstrongā enough to recognize a mistake and correct it before it did serious harm to its business.
You keep citing the Gettysburg address as if it were some peroration of extraordinary length and this leads me to suspect that you are not entirely familiar with it - - since it consists of only 279 words. You can find it at:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm
Best,
Stephen