• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:12:40 -0500

In the announcment or on the web page?  I prefer 
the announcement to be light on details except those 
that tell me why I should click on the link and 
get the details.  Otherwise, I agree that the 
licensing should be right up front.  If a site 
requires more personal information than I am 
willing to give, I pass and also scratch the 
cookie they planted from the harddrive.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 7:36 AM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re: [OT] Announcements (was RE: XMLLight - What do you think?)


I'd like to add two more criteria:

1. They should clearly specify the actual price or license. Specifying a
"free demo version", while interesting in itself, is not an acceptable
substitute for the actual price of the product. Some people don't want to
pay for software. Some people don't want to use GPL'd software. Either way,
the details should be specified right up front so subscribers can rule out
products that aren't of interest to them. 

2. Anything that is freely downloadable should not require the submission of
personal information. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [OT] Announcements (was RE: XMLLight - What do you think?)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
• Next by Date: RE: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing
• Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Announcements (was RE: XMLLight - What do you think?)
• Next by thread: RE: [OT] Announcements (was RE: XMLLight - What do you think?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread