Milonic provide full featured pull down web menus for some of the worlds largest companies
click here to see what it can do for you

Download Milonic DHTML Menu
Buy Milonic DHTML Menu

Back To Start Of Archive
Taken From The Forum: Archived Topics for the old Version 3.0 JavaScript Menu
Forum Topic: Click to view post
Last Updated: Thursday February 8 2018 - 06:02:44

''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: matt __at__ mysecretbase.com
Dated: Wednesday March 6 2002 - 18:08:40 GMT

I have a client that I put the menus on several days ago, and bought a support contract. After the site launch we all decided a different menu structure would be a better idea.

I have another client that might like the menu. I'd like to transfer my use of one of my support contracts from the old site to the new one.

Is this sort of thing acceptable? Usually when I visit PayPal and register one of these I name the domain I'm using it on.

Cheers,

--Matt--

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: atpcz
Dated: Wednesday February 6 2002 - 10:55:01 GMT

Hi Matt,

it seems to me there has been confusion from the start about the conditions of the support contract. I never understood the contract to be limited to just one domain/website.
When I bought my contract a few days ago, the page info for Medium Support Contract stated the following:

"So, what do you get for your $30?

Well, you get the opportunity to use the menu on any number of website you choose without the need for links back to http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu."

Anything else wouldn't make much sense, IMHO, anyway. I always saw the purchase of multiple contracts purely as a support for the development of the menu.

However, in the last two days, when I checked the website, the wording on the support contract info page seems to have changed - now it says:
"Well, quite a lot actually. You get the opportunity to use the menu on a website without the need for links back to http://www.milonic.co.uk/menu."

Does this mean the conditions of use have changed? I can only use it on "a" website - meaning *one* website? The wording is highly ambiguous.

Andy, this doesn't look good. I have to say I'm very concerned. Since I bought my support contract, I haven't received any confirmation or information from Milonic whatsoever; my email request for information went unanswered.

I bought my contract mainly because I wanted to support the development, not because I actually need one for a specific purpose. But if this is how things are going to be handled (including unclear provisions/conditions of contract), then I for one shall be asking for a refund.

Regards,
B.

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: ron __at__ evolutions.ca
Dated: Wednesday February 6 2002 - 15:31:29 GMT

Britta,

This is just an observation, and is NOT meant as a knock against you: Your position doesn't strike me as being reasonable.

First and foremost the value derived from the Milonic product is well worth US$30 per site, especially considering the typical site design fees we all charge. Admittedly those have plummeted given current market realities, but then again Andy's product is *still* priced with this reality in mind.

When I was out looking around the marketplace for a replacement for HierMenus for use in my wholesaled CMS, I believe I evaluated and/or tested *every* cross-browser product out there.

This one came out of that evaluation on top, and remains one of the cheapest as presently priced. I could list the alternatives I went thru, and why they came in second place, but the bottom line is that if you are going to go looking for an alternative that costs less and delivers comparable features I can say from experience you will likely be disappointed.

In my opinion we are in a highly-skilled, high-margin, highly-paid profession. Thirty bucks per domain won't kill any of us, although again given current market realities the belt *does* need to stay tight. Still, demanding a tool like this for a one-time annual fee of $30 to be used across all manner of commercial projects -- each of which can easily net thousands of dollars in revenue -- sounds neither fair nor reasonable.

Finally, having discussed this here in this forum and with Andy personally via email, prior to the site's unveiling it was *always* my understanding that the license was per-domain. I'd expect that the license agreement you read was a typo. Here again if it was me -- and you can take this free advice for what its worth -- I'd be more concerned with being fair to the developer and all his hard, up-to-now-unpaid work than demanding adherence to that original license.

Sorry for the rant, but as a developer who is doing what Andy is - selling software wholesale to other developers cheap - you sorta hit a nerve.

--Matt--

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: roseha __at__ earthlink.net
Dated: Wednesday February 6 2002 - 16:32:04 GMT

Hi guys,

just been browsing and I can see some friction here :-(

i'm currently in Las Vegas and I will sort this matter out the moment I get home early next week.

In the meantime I can confirm that menus ARE transferable and also that we are pretty flexible on licensing etc.

Cheers
Andy

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: dsutton __at__ dgs.net
Dated: Wednesday February 6 2002 - 17:52:12 GMT

Andy,

I'm sorry if I have introduced friction. I was in rather a glum mood yesterday (health-related). I don't want you to think that I'm not supportive of the project and indeed the excellent forum here. So for that I apologise.

Your absence from home would explain why I hadn't heard back from you :)

I think you'll have to give up your day job! <g>

Regards,
B.

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: bjorndottir __at__ hotmail.com
Dated: Wednesday February 6 2002 - 20:03:42 GMT

Hi Matt,

you make many valid points, and most of them I wouldn't disagree with. It's simply that I come at it from a different situation/angle.

Please note that I never said that the menu was unreasonably priced. In fact I think the support contract is priced just right.
I would also agree that for most commercial sites out there, the price of the menu contract is money well spent. If I had a client who was in that league, I would not hesitate a second to get a contract for the domain and charge the client accordingly.
You say: "to be used across all manner of commercial projects -- each of which can easily net thousands of dollars in revenue -- sounds neither fair nor reasonable." Sure. But I don't do lots of commercial projects (in fact have never done one that earned me a cent). And where I live, small businesses simply don't pay that sort of money. There is no "typical site design fees we all charge", as far as I'm concerned. I'm just saying - don't make too many assumptions.

For the time being, I want to use the menu on 2 project websites I'm working on. Both are non-profit; one is a purely personal site. Andy's post seems to indicate that there won't be a problem with that, and I'm obviously happy to hear that.
I guess, I'm probably someone who would normally be in the free/low-contract menu category and have strayed into the one intended for professional developers making a living off website design.

I think I *am* being fair to Andy. Maybe in a different way to you. I know that I would never abuse the contract and the use of the menu; but I'm also well aware that there are too many ratbags out there who wouldn't think twice to ride roughshot over the provisions of such a contract (since it is almost impossible to police who will use the menu on how many websites, and indeed even who may or may not be sticking to the provisions of the free/low-contract menu). So my (not very nicely worded) criticism was (and I stick by that) pointing to what I perceive to be a weak point in Andy's contract setup. I mean by that:
- conditions should be crystal clear (no, the contract page I saw and saved was not a "typo");
- I think it's common practice that when you purchase software online you receive some automated confirmation email, usually giving further information. I would like to see that happen for the menu.

I'm actually trying to be helpful; even if it doesn't look like that. If *I* get grumpy (as a strong supporter of this menu), then you can bet a lot of people who just bowl in and want to grab a menu will likely get even more confused and grumpy. And that can't be good for the future.

But in the end, it's Andy's headache, having to work out a contract level that can cover all sorts of levels of usage. I would strongly recommend that any change in support contract conditions/wording is clearly flagged and dated, with a notice sent out to all registered users.
Yes, I do expect provisions under which I purchase software to hold good and be honoured.
I'm not suggesting by that for one minute (lest you misunderstand me) that Andy is attempting to evade a contract - of course not :) I think this situation is simply due to the menu's burgeoning popularity and the burdens in extra work and admin this is placing on Andy. The bottom line is: once you start charging money for something, you're operating in a different sphere. A charge of unfairness I therefore do not accept.

Regards,
B.

Re: ''Licensing'' transferrable?


Poster: kuan_yew __at__ yahoo.com
Dated: Thursday February 7 2002 - 10:57:28 GMT

it's 30 bucks - or a short night out on the town, stop wasting the ends of your fingers.

pete