Re: Licensing regression between versions 2.28 and 2.29

Hi,

unfortunately, our agreement with TI was based on a one year time period 
and not specific version numbers. We regret any inconvenience that this 
situation may have caused.

It's important to note that you can still use DriverLoader 2.28 as long 
as you want with your wireless device based on a Texas Instruments 
chipset without buying a license. This is true even if the agreement has 
ended.

Regards,


Jonathan
Technical specialist / Linuxant
www.linuxant.com
[email protected]



Duchesne Family wrote:
> Jonathan,
> 
> 
>>Texas Instruments (TI) has decided not to renew the arrangement to
>>cover the cost of licenses. This is why TI users now need to purchase
>>a license key to use DriverLoader as it is the case with other chipsets.
>>
>>You can buy a license from our web store
> 
> 
> Your reply, while informative, gives the impression that Linuxant deals
> with this issue lightly, in a cavalier way. Let me explain why I'm
> frustrated:
> 
> When I bought my first NIC (broadcom-based) from Linksys, I was happy to
> learn about Linuxant, and went to Linuxant's web store to pay $ 20 to
> buy my DriverLoader license for that NIC.
> 
> When I bought my second NIC (TI-based) from Linksys, I carefully chose
> this model because it was supported by DriverLoader literally _out of
> the box_. Of all the money I gave to Linksys to pay for this NIC, a
> slice went to TI and ultimately to Linuxant to pay for _my_ DriverLoader
> license (i.e. the DriverLoader license associated with the MAC of _my_
> TI-based NIC). In other words, although I didn't have to go to
> Linuxant's web store to pay for my license, I still did pay for it.
> 
> So I paid for both licenses, but when I upgrade from DriverLoader 2.28
> to 2.29, my broadcom-based license is still OK, but my TI-based license
> is not OK anymore. That is what is not normal.
> 
> While it is sad that TI did not renew their licensing agreement with
> Linuxant, it should have absolutely no impact on me: I bought this TI
> card while the agreement was in full effect, and consequently I paid for
> the right to use my TI-based NIC with DriverLoader. I believe that
> Linuxant has absolutely no right to revoke my TI-based license in
> DriverLoader 2.29.
> 
> I respectfully suggest that Linuxant rethink their policy on that
> matter. Stealing from your customers is not a good way to keep them.
> 
> One way to address this issue would be to look deeper at the MAC
> address: if the MAC address corresponds to a TI chipset that was
> manufactured while the agreement was in effect, then enable the OEM
> license. If the MAC address corresponds to a TI chipset that was
> manufactured after the agreement was revoked, then disable the OEM
> license. This would be fair.
> 
> PS: On top of that, when the agreement with TI was signed, you guys
> announced it with great fanfare at
> http://www.linuxant.com/company/press_dldrti.php?PHPSESSID=67983b97f44d75ec10f9417c63aa04cb
> But surprisingly, no announcement was made when TI didn't renew the
> agreement. So the aforementionned URL is misleading your customers.
> 
> Thanks for reading,