Re: White Pine CUSeeMe Version 3.1.1

Jason Williams (
Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:06:12 -0500 (CDT)

On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Grattan Colvin wrote:
> I always understood that I had gotten something for free and if it was
> imperfect, well, it didn't cost me anything.

The assumption here is that White Pine is dealing with making their
version compatible with the "imperfect" Cornell version which just isn't
true at all. In most cases that I've seen, it's the White Pine version
that's imperfect and prevents you from operating the software correctly
(ie: the 2.X close all problem. So the question becomes, why do people
PAY for buggy software?

> To chastise a company for failing to make their commercial
> products (clients, servers or whatever) completely compatible with
> freeware versions strikes me as being patently unfair. Hell, even when
> two for-profit companies offer completely different products, there may
> be incompatibility issues.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you. Except for the fact that White Pine and
Cornell AREN'T producing two seperate products in the sense that they are
both being called CU-SeeMe. Who has the rights to use the name CU-SeeMe?
In your example, suppose BOTH products were called SmartMarks but they
were being produced by two different companies, one of which became the
licensee to use the software of the other. That's how I see White Pine,
as the "master licensee". It would be interesting to comb thru the actual
contract and see if Cornell allows their master licensee to break
compatibility with Cornell's software.

Had White Pine's version and Cornell's version been designed seperately
with no code overlap, etc., I could see where that argument makes sense.

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|