Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bonanno"
<tbonanno-ranger2004@m...> wrote:
> Hi Keith and others,
> 
> As already stated, this is not about "shooting the messenger", but
> rather there appears to be some legitimate confusion regarding the
> shareware fee.
> 
> I guess it is up to Roy to clarify and resolve the fee question.
> 
> However, on the PC page, I don't see anything confusing at all.  Roy
> clearly states that the "PRODUCT" has "TWO PARTS" : the gimp engine
> and the QTR profiles, etc.  He then states that if you wish to
> continue using the "PRODUCT", then there is a $50 fee.  There is no
> "one part" PRODUCT option.  To read into the text that if you don't
> use the profiles you don't have to pay the fee is a real stretch in my
> opinon.
> 
> You might want to consider emailing Roy.  There have been a number of
> articles on QTR and every one I've read is pretty clear that the
> shareware fee is $50.
> 
> I found your article Keith to be quite informative and interesting
> about the MonoChrome inks and the use of QTR. Thanks for the link.
> 
> 
> Tony

I agree with every aspect of Tony's post.  In Keith's excellent
review, the interpretation he gives to Roy's shareware fee structure
is rather a "stretch" (one worthy of a high-priced tax lawyer). IMO,
he's  reading into Roy's wording a meaning that isn't intended and
can't be supported by the one-piece structure of the software
download. I don't believe Keith did this carelessly or maliciously 
but in any event his interpretation of the shareware payment happens
to be at odds with the almost the entire community of QTR users. 

Yes, it would be good if Roy changed the wording to make his intent
utterly, absolutely and irrevocably unmistakable. But in the meantime
Keith ought to just 'fess up to the fact that he's likely
misinterpreted Roy's intent, and change his article appropriately
without waiting for action on Roy's part. For that matter, I'd expect
that Keith, by now, would be making some effort to contact Roy
_directly_ for clarification.

Phil