bmw files, how to read them....
P.Drysdale
Maybe a dumm question but I really would appreciate to get more information
about how to read the bmw-files in my possession these days,
as I'm after all a do-it-yourself-man and only learnt to read the notes of
tunes...
Can somebody make or refer to a kind of short list of abbreviations?
Thanks for your help anyway,
Peter D.
Pat Farrell
If you are really interested in interpreting Bagpipe Music Writer files, I would suggest that
you go directly to the source and purchase a copy of Rob MacNeil's Bagpipe Music Writer
Gold. Rob's the originator and author of the .bmw/.bww file format. By purchasing his
real thing you will get a manual explaining all of the notations and you will support his
efforts. You can check http://home.istar.ca/~rmm for ordering information. You can
probably also buy BMW from other sources that you can find through the web.
<editorial>
As an aside, I've used BMW for a long time, and have even tossed in some suggestions,
such as the "spacing" concept, so I feel that I have some right to recommend that those
who would use it should should support it financially. I don't suspect that Rob MacNeil
is getting the financial returns on his product that he deserves. So there. Hummph..
</editorial>
Regards,
Pat
"P.Drysdale" <P.Dry...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message news:9s9bsc$8vc$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
E. K. Smith
There's an easier way (assuming you're running Windoze):
1) Go to http://home.iSTAR.ca/~dougwick/
2) Download Bagpipe Player.
3) Install it.
4) Enjoy it.
5) Send Doug a few bucks so he'll continue to make it available and
improve it. ;-)
Once you've done that, you can just load tunes in BMW format into
Bagpipe Player and look at - and play - them.
HTH,
Ken Smith
Bob Dunsire
I'm annoyed... sorry about this..
I've stayed away from this "discussion" for nearly a year now.. I feel a need
to jump in again..
BMW comes from:
http://home.istar.ca/~rmm/index.html
This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
rightful owner... (and it really bugs me to see people help him in this effort)
This (using the stolen software) is no different than going to any of the
thousands of other WAREZ sites and downloading illegal or stolen software..
except this actually hurts piping! (And sorry..I don't want to have argument
again - it does hurt piping)
Sending money to the thief does not help piping, and it does not help the owner
of the software.
A stunning suggestion! Sending money to a thief?
Unlike some (all?) of the *We're not experts, but think you should use this
free software anyway* that have posted their opinions and advice on this
subject (the stolen BMW software) in the past, I actually do know the story - I
was involved..
True, I am not a legal expert (that might be my wife), but I do have 25 years +
experience in the software industry, and Robert MacNeil is a good friend of
mine
You can probably tell - it really bothers me that people still suggest using
stolen software.
The sad fact is that the economics of piping software do not justify the legal
expense of closing down that web site - AGAIN ! - it has been shut down (more
than once) in the past, but at some point one has to realise / accept there is
no economic justification for doing what is legal and right - (sad but true)
<<Hi, Peter.
There's an easier way (assuming you're running Windoze):
1) Go to WAREZ SITE
2) Download WAREZ SOFTWARE
3) Install it.
4) Enjoy it.
5) Send WAREZ SITE OWNER a few bucks so he'll continue to make it available and
improve it. ;-)
>>
Whew.. sad..
I guess I'll wait another year to post on this subject.. I know it does little
(no?) good, this is simply an issue of morals.. I am not even sure that it even
makes me feel much better..
Sigh..
Bob D.
-------------
having much fun with web pages, including
http://members.aol.com/bagpipeweb/wbpnews.html (News & Results)
http://members.aol.com/bagpipeweb (Bagpipe Web Directory - 2500+ links)
http://www.bcpipers.org (BC Pipers' Association)
PYPPR
>From: bdun...@aol.comNOSPAM (Bob Dunsire)
I'm with you on this, Bob, all the way. Stolen goods are stolen goods, whether
a car, a necklace or software. Stu
E. K. Smith
1) Doug was contracted to make improvements/enhancements to BMW.
2) He made the improvements/enhancements.
3) The person contracting to have the improvements/enhancements made
reneged on the agreement for whatever reasons.
4) Doug offered the improved/enhanced version as shareware.
I heard this from a very reliable source not given to spreading
misinformation.
So:
1) What's the truth?
2) How do I know it's the truth?
I'm absolutely NOT one to support/encourage piracy. I think previous
posts of mine have made that abundantly clear. Unfortunately, I'm
also all to familiar with failures to honor commitments, so I have no
doubt that what I describe above could very well have occurred.
Regards,
Ken Smith
On 07 Nov 2001 17:32:33 GMT bdun...@aol.comNOSPAM (Bob Dunsire)
wrote:
>
> [snippage]
>
>This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
>a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
>is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
>rightful owner.
>
> [more snippage]
>
farclan
I bought MacNeill's software and disks and book.
I downloaded Dougie's.
When I had questions - Dougie was nasty
and abusive. I deleted his program.
When I had problems with BMW Gold - Robert MacNeill
called me - offered help, guidance, and assistance and got
my BMW Gold running perfectly.
MacNeill was kind, generous, and patient with a clear
interest in his product and in music.
That is the difference between pirates and professionals.
Christine
"Bob Dunsire" <bdun...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20011107123233...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Ken MacKenzie
Since no one can satisfy your requirements and absolutely prove to you
what is the truth in this matter, you can use any information you may
have from any source to make your particular point.
As for Bob and myself, we are close to the whole story since we both
know Rob MacNeil very well. Bob has been a lot closer to the complete
story since he actually took part in some of the tweaking of bmw.
We know what we know and while Bob is brave enough to say what needs
to be said about the situation, I have sat back and watched Wickstrom
or whatever his name is conciously steal Rob's product and promote it
as his own.
There is truth in some of your remark about the compensation thing but
it is only that compensation is what caused the rift. When one party
decides that what was originally agreed on isn't good enough for him
after the project is finished isn't grounds to advocate theft.
BTW, the person who decided to ignore the previously agreed deal isn't
Rob MacNeil.
Since you don't know me or Bob you can continue to say that your
sources are better and nothing we say will change your mind but I
think that the fact we actually have had a hand in some of what has
gone on should give us a shred of credibility.
I'm done here and I won't respond to any further posts on the NG
concerning this matter.
Ken
Ken MacKenzie
akm...@dccnet.com
Sechelt, BC Canada
Height by genetics---Width by brewery.
http://www.user.dccnet.com/akmack
MrRobotTow
>whether
>a car, a necklace or software. Stu
>
Except they aren't stolen goods. Doug Wickstrom WROTE the prog, and if there
were really a dispute about it the site would be down (I don't know of anytime
it has been down in the past.) so in spite of the "behind the scenes" story you
have read in this thread, I have heard a very different one. Perhaps friendship
is tainting a certain partys comments?
Bill "The Piping God"
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized
that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked Him to forgive
me.
http://hometown.aol.com/mrrobottow/
MrRobotTow
>
>1) Doug was contracted to make improvements/enhancements to BMW.
>
>2) He made the improvements/enhancements.
>
>3) The person contracting to have the improvements/enhancements made
>reneged on the agreement for whatever reasons.
>
>4) Doug offered the improved/enhanced version as shareware.
>
>I heard this from a very reliable source not given to spreading
>misinformation.
This is the true story. If the man had been paid then they would have no
dispute, but Wickstrom got screwed in the deal.
MrRobotTow
>
>I downloaded Dougie's.
>
>When I had questions - Dougie was nasty
>and abusive. I deleted his program.
>
>When I had problems with BMW Gold - Robert MacNeill
>called me - offered help, guidance, and assistance and got
>my BMW Gold running perfectly.
>
>MacNeill was kind, generous, and patient with a clear
>interest in his product and in music.
>
>That is the difference between pirates and professionals.
>
>Christine
So was it worth the overly inflated price of $150 to have him be nice to you?
Chris Hamilton
>>I'm with you on this, Bob, all the way. Stolen goods are stolen goods,
>>whether
>>a car, a necklace or software. Stu
>>
>
>Except they aren't stolen goods. Doug Wickstrom WROTE the prog, and if there
>were really a dispute about it the site would be down (I don't know of anytime
>it has been down in the past.) so in spite of the "behind the scenes" story you
>have read in this thread, I have heard a very different one. Perhaps friendship
>is tainting a certain partys comments?
I know Rob. I don't know Doug. I bought the software long ago (1995?)
and use it practically every day.
Yes, there are two sides to every story. I'm no Judge Judy, but I
prefer to stick with the safe side and use and endorse only the
authorized version (no, not the KJV, the BMW).
I also know this ... when I worked for various computer consulting
firms, I had to sign an agreement that any code and software that I
wrote or invented was the intellectual property of the corporation,
not my intellectual property. Period.
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christopher Hamilton -- ToneCzar Inc.
ch...@toneczar.com -- www.toneczar.com
Chris Hamilton
>So was it worth the overly inflated price of $150 to have him be nice to you?
Overly inflated price? Get real. Ever buy Oracle software? Ever
transcribe music by hand?
At the list price of $100 or $150 it's a bargain. TECH SUPPORT is
expensive, but invaluable in a crisis. My former employer used to pay
five-figure fees to Oracle every year for the right to call them up
and ask them questions and get upgrades and such. And that was a
relatively small installation.
MrRobotTow
I'll just add I'm no judge either, and I'm quite sure the others in this thread
have far more intimate info on the whole situation than I do, mine is just what
I was told, and I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between the two stories.
Bruce C. Wright
>Oh no.. rant coming.
>
>I'm annoyed... sorry about this..
>
>I've stayed away from this "discussion" for nearly a year now.. I feel a need
>to jump in again..
>
>BMW comes from:
>http://home.istar.ca/~rmm/index.html
>
>This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
>a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
>is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
>rightful owner... (and it really bugs me to see people help him in this effort)
>
I know that a couple of times over the past six months I had recommended
Doug's
site, but somehow I had managed to miss the previous discussions about
this issue;
I found the site from a link from another site or from Google, I don't
remember at this
point - I do a lot of Web surfing. I also don't read all of the
articles in this group, just
the ones that look like they might be worth reading or answering, and
sometimes I'm
away for months at a time. Since browsing through the newgroup archives on
Google shows that this subject has only come up a couple times before at
widely
separated intervals, I suppose it's not too surprising that I missed it.
I took the
software to be exactly what it appeared to be: shareware like any
number of other
sites on the net, about which there is no reason to question their
ownership.
As it happens I do a lot of computer programming, much of it by
contract. Over
the years I've had my share of deadbeat or bankrupt customers; the
amount it's
cost me over the years amounts to a small fortune. Unfortunately it can
sometimes
be difficult or impossible to recover in many of these cases - you can't
get blood
from a stone. Add to that some of the messes I've observed others get
into, and I've
seen a lot of the ways that software projects and contracts can go awry.
I should
also note that there are any number of ways such things can be
structured - some-
times it can be a flat fee, or by the hour, or as a percentage of sales,
and there's
plenty of room for three or more sides for every story.
So I sent Doug a polite email asking him his side of the story, since it
all did sound
rather dicey for all sides from here. I received back a reply that I
consider to be
both irrelevant and abusive. My experience in dealing with people in
the business
world is that this kind of response is tantamount to an admission of
guilt I see no
reason to believe that Doug has any right to do what he's doing.
So I must beg Robert MacNeil's and Bob Dunsire's forgiveness and that my
only plea is ignorance of what apparently was going on.
And I think that that will be my last word on the subject.
--Bruce
Bruce C. Wright
> Oh no.. rant coming.
>
> I'm annoyed... sorry about this..
>
> I've stayed away from this "discussion" for nearly a year now.. I feel a need
> to jump in again..
>
> BMW comes from:
> http://home.istar.ca/~rmm/index.html
>
> This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
> a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
> is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
> rightful owner... (and it really bugs me to see people help him in this effort)
I know that a couple of times over the past six months I had recommended Doug's
Bruce C. Wright
> Oh no.. rant coming.
>
> I'm annoyed... sorry about this..
>
> I've stayed away from this "discussion" for nearly a year now.. I feel a need
> to jump in again..
>
> BMW comes from:
> http://home.istar.ca/~rmm/index.html
>
> This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
> a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
> is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
> rightful owner... (and it really bugs me to see people help him in this effort)
I know that a couple of times over the past six months I had recommended Doug's
site, but somehow I had managed to miss the previous discussions about this issue;
I found the site from a link from another site or from Google, I don't remember
at this point - I do a lot of Web surfing. I also don't read all of the articles
in
this group, just the ones that look like they might be worth reading or
answering, and sometimes I'm away for months at a time. Since
browsing through the newgroup archives on Google shows that this subject
has only come up a couple times before at widely separated intervals, I
suppose it's not too surprising that I missed it. I took the software to be
exactly what it appeared to be: shareware like any number of other sites
on the net, about which there is no reason to question their ownership.
As it happens I do a lot of computer programming, much of it by contract. Over
the years I've had my share of deadbeat or bankrupt customers; the amount it's
cost me over the years amounts to a small fortune. Unfortunately it can sometimes
be difficult or impossible to recover in many of these cases - you can't get blood
from a stone. Add to that some of the messes I've observed others get into,
and I've seen a lot of the ways that software projects and contracts can go
awry. I should also note that there are any number of ways such things can
be structured - sometimes it can be a flat fee, or by the hour, or as a
Bruce C. Wright
> Oh no.. rant coming.
>
> I'm annoyed... sorry about this..
>
> I've stayed away from this "discussion" for nearly a year now.. I feel a need
> to jump in again..
>
> BMW comes from:
> http://home.istar.ca/~rmm/index.html
>
> This other software is stolen! It is not dougies to give away.. he is not even
> a piper.. he is not developing the software.. he does not own the software.. he
> is in fact quite simply a coder body... he is just trying to hurt the legal and
> rightful owner... (and it really bugs me to see people help him in this effort)
I know that a couple of times over the past six months I had recommended
MrRobotTow
>
>--Bruce
It was your last word, four times... lol
Bruce C. Wright
The client I was using wrapped the lines in unfortunate locations, so I
cancelled the other articles. If your NNTP server doesn't properly
process the cancel requests, then it is clearly broken :^)
--Bruce
MrRobotTow
>transcribe music by hand?
>
>At the list price of $100 or $150 it's a bargain. TECH SUPPORT is
>expensive, but invaluable in a crisis. My former employer used to pay
>five-figure fees to Oracle every year for the right to call them up
>and ask them questions and get upgrades and such. And that was a
>relatively small installation.
>
>Chris
You're right Chris, tech support alone is well worth that price (not that I
HAVE EVER needed it.) in the computer world, I guess the same would hold true
for that software.
MrRobotTow
>cancelled the other articles. If your NNTP server doesn't properly
>process the cancel requests, then it is clearly broken :^)
I'll be sure to give them your input. ;?)~
AOL does cancel articles, but only its own articles.
Bill
dgr...@cs.csuabk.edu
> On 08 Nov 2001 01:47:40 GMT, mrrob...@aol.com (MrRobotTow) wrote:
>>So was it worth the overly inflated price of $150 to have him be nice to you?
> Overly inflated price? Get real. Ever buy Oracle software? Ever
> transcribe music by hand?
> At the list price of $100 or $150 it's a bargain. TECH SUPPORT is
> expensive, but invaluable in a crisis. My former employer used to pay
> five-figure fees to Oracle every year for the right to call them up
> and ask them questions and get upgrades and such. And that was a
> relatively small installation.
However, when you pay such big bucks (to wit, Oracle), you get to talk to
someone who REALLY groks the product rather than some trained monkey who
can only read from a script.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csubak.edu
dgr...@cs.csuabk.edu
[snip story about Doug Wickstrom's "Bagpipe Reader" software being stolen
from the author of Bagpipe Music Writer.]
> So I sent Doug a polite email asking him his side of the story, since it all did
> sound rather dicey for all sides from here. I received back a reply that I
> consider to be both irrelevant and abusive. My experience in dealing with
> people in the business world is that this kind of response is tantamount to
> an admission of guilt I see no reason to believe that Doug has any right
> to do what he's doing.
Unless Doug actually ripped off the source code to Bagpipe Music Writer,
then one can't say that he stole anything. Writing a program that can
understand the input or output of another program is not stealing.
--
David Griffith
dgr...@cs.csubak.edu
E. K. Smith
important information on the background of this issue. (Ken, I felt
you were a bit more confrontational than was necessary, given the
circumstances and the tone of my posting, but that doesn't really
surprise me much in this newsgroup, sad to say.)
I also offer my apologies to Robert MacNeil for inadvertantly
promoting a pirated product. I won't do it any more.
Regards,
Ken Smith
Chris Hamilton
True true - most of the time. My experience with Oracle tech support
over the 10 years I was in that field was quite good. A few losers and
know-nothings here and there, but most of the tech support folks were
extremely knowledgeable. And if they didn't know, you got to talk to
someone who did.
Doug Wickstrom
burnings. Also, that ownership of software is not defined by the number of
friends you have on a newsgroup.
There must some legal avenues Robert MacNeil can persue if I "stole" his
code.
Doug W.
Bruce C. Wright <bcwr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BEA0B01...@ix.netcom.com...
hackpiper
only asking questions many of us have asked since this situation started
long time ago and are only starting to get answered now, IMO. We don't all
know Robert or Doug personally or have any inside information.
I am a BMW owner, but get a bit concerned when I notice Robert's Website
home page hasn't been updated since October 22, 2000 and the ordering info
page hasn't been updated since December 16, 1999.
Furthermore:
the BMW website designer is Stewart Nimmo and in the "Archives of Tunes in
BMW Format" on the BMW website, there's a link to Stewarts Canadian Bagpipe
Links (great site Stewart!) and when you go there, the tunes are all in bww
format!
The link to "Chris Hamilton's tune archive", is out of date, it's actually:
http://www.toneczar.com/compositions.html (great site Chris!). I just
downloaded the zip file and the tunes are also in bww format.
All this concerns me because I think BMW is an excellent product and I hope
it's not an excellent "dead" product. OTOH, before blaming everyone for
downloading Doug's version, a bit of up to date info on the BMW website
would help make it look like it's still in business and they may want to
not link to websites with .bww tunes on them.
ReplyOnlyToT...@use.net (E. K. Smith) wrote in
news:3bea7c35...@news2.wwnet.net:
--
hackpiper
Bob Dunsire
filename.BMW uses the older file extension (.bmw) - used by both BMW Gold and
the old DOS BMW.
filename.BWW uses the new BMW file extension (.bww), used by the BMW Gold
program.
<<when you go there, the tunes are all in bww format!
major snippage
I am a BMW owner>>
I would guess the BMW you own is not BMW Gold. I would also guess the older
BMW does not understand the BWW file format.
(And I resist other comments..)
Ken MacKenzie
I did say I was done here but this deserves a response. Questions were
asked in a tone that said, "I don't care what the answers are." I
answered in the same tone. "I don't care what you think of my answers
to your questions."
Bing blunt is my way of responding to questions that were unreasonable
in their tone IMO. If the original questions were mis-read by me, then
that's one of the consequences of this type of communication. I still
stand by my reply and actually would say more but I'm not at liberty
to do so because of the ongoing situation. It ain't over 'til it's
over.
When this situation arose both Bob and I made a number of attempts at
getting the story out, Bob moreso than myself. In the end I just
decided to give it up and let things take their course. BMW Gold is
still being sold through retailers and on the site. Rob still supports
the product. Since there have been no changes to the product or to the
status of Rob's business, I can't see any need to make changes to the
site for the sake of change. Again this is MY opinion.
Ken
Chris Hamilton
>I also didn't think your questions deserved that type of response. You were
>only asking questions many of us have asked since this situation started
>long time ago and are only starting to get answered now, IMO. We don't all
>know Robert or Doug personally or have any inside information.
Exactly! The rude response was precisely what several other posters
mentioned when they contacted Doug. Not a good PR move, legal right or
wrong aside.
>The link to "Chris Hamilton's tune archive", is out of date, it's actually:
>http://www.toneczar.com/compositions.html (great site Chris!). I just
>downloaded the zip file and the tunes are also in bww format.
Thanks!
MrRobotTow
>mentioned when they contacted Doug.
I find this very strange because in several emails with him he was always
cordial to me.
hackpiper
about.
I do have BMW Gold, which I bought.
When someone a day or two ago mentioned that Doug continued to make
enhancements to "his" version, I downloaded it and installed it on my pc.
When I downloaded a couple of tunes from the sites I mentioned and double-
clicked on them, it had associated bww with Dougs program so it opened them
in it and had on the first line "Bagpipe Reader:1.0" instead of "Bagpipe
Music Writer Gold:1.0" so I just assumed they were created using Doug's
software. I thought it was just basically a text editor like Piob Mhor used
to have so I didn't know it would actually change the code, I thought it
just displayed exactly what was there.
I should know better than that but I didn't look at it very closely.
Sorry.
bdun...@aol.comNOSPAM (Bob Dunsire) wrote in
news:20011108115730...@mb-fo.aol.com:
--
hackpiper
E. K. Smith
Actually, I don't think I asked the question in a tone that said, "I
don't care what the answers are." I'm sorry you (mis)interpreted it
that way. I asked what was the truth, and how I could know it's the
truth. I'm sure you've noticed that all manner of "facts" are
presented in this newsgroup. Many of them are not facts at all.
Unfortunately, that is what usenet has become - a place where people
regularly take advantage of the fact that they can anonymously say
anything they want.
There are certain individuals who post here who (in my mind,at any
rate) have great credibility. Bob Dunsire and Bruce Wright happen to
be among them. Hence, my request and subsequent response, which - if
you'll recall - included a retraction and an apology.
As a bit of friendly advice: You might want to give people who post
here the benefit of the doubt - if you find their tone questionable,
assume they mean no offense until/unless they've demonstrated that
their intent is to misrepresent things and/or disrupt meaningful
dialogue.
In your post you say you're "not at liberty to [say more] because of
the ongoing situation". I suspect - but don't know - that means
there's ongoing litigation wrt this issue. If that's a correct
interpretation, that's good information. I'd bet that the majority of
people here have no idea that's going on.
Wrt your statement that you and Bob "made a number of attempts at
getting the story out": That's great. Good for you. But a number of
us joined the newsgroup well after those attempts. How can we be held
accountable for not knowing all that has gone on prior to our arrival
on the scene? I think that a bit unreasonable, don't you? It
certainly isn't in the RMMB FAQ. So, again, give us the benefit of
the doubt.
In this newsgroup one can choose to be part of the problem or part of
the solution. I try to be part of the latter; it's more rewarding.
Respectfully,
Ken Smith
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 08:58:06 -0800 Ken MacKenzie <akm...@dccnet.com>
E. K. Smith
>
>I find this very strange because in several emails with him he was always
>cordial to me.
>
Professional courtesy perhaps? ;-)
Ken Smith
Ken MacKenzie
>In this newsgroup one can choose to be part of the problem or part of
>the solution. I try to be part of the latter; it's more rewarding.
>
time. Long before the present situation got any where near what it is
today. I admit that I may have been a bit hasty in my interpretation
of your original comments and attribute my terseness to my background
in the military and police. I don't wnat to use this as an excuse but
I'm the type that tries to be concise and can seem overbearing at
times, particularly when I get my knickers in a knot. So be it. I do
know that I had no intention to attack you and if that's how it looked
then I'm guilty as Hell.
I've been noticeably absent from any of the flame wars and mud
slinging that has gone on here and that should demonstrate to you that
I can't be bothered with that sort of foolishness since it benefits no
one. Also you are correct in stating it has been a while since there
was any info on this BMW business passed to the NG and I should have
remembered that. Sometimes even an easy going guy like myself is
entitled to lose it...
Now I'm going to catch Hell for having said as little as I have when I
see Robbie on the weekend...somedays you can't win.
Ken
Ken MacKenzie
akm...@dccnet.com
Sechelt, BC Canada
Height by genetics---Width by brewery.
http://www.user.dccnet.com/akmack
Ken MacKenzie
insert, I must have picked up some of the bad habits around here by
over exposure.
Ken
Steve and Bonnie MacLeod
regarding bugs in BMW Gold. When I found the same problems in the shareware
version, Mr. Wickstrom quickly provided code fixes. I found him to be very
polite and certainly not abusive.
Even if he were, the statement that "this kind of response is tantamount
to an admission of guilt", must not be allowed to stand.
I've been a "contract program" for hobbyist efforts and have found the
fulfillment of financial arrangements to be very weak. In the excitement
of getting the project moving, the "details" are often left until later.
Dealing with them later has made me very irritable and has cost a couple
friendships. (In contrast, financial arrangments are always clearly
detailed in contracts when doing similar work with companies.)
Regarding the issue of "theft". Mr. Wickstrom is clearly listed as a
co-copyright holder on my copy of BMWGold. This doesn't define the
arrangment, but sounds like something well above the level of "coder body".
The RMMB is a truly lousy forum for "trying" this issue. We cannot know the
truth and we can impose no settlement.
I hope that others will join me in asking Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Wickstrom to
settle their differences in court. While many out there benefit from access
to the shareware version in the short term, there is no long term benefit to
piping continuing the loss of revenue that could go into improving this
program. At this point, it is very likely that only a legal settlement can
provide resolution of the differences.
Steve MacLeod
Portage, MI
thunderbirl
My apologies for the delay, but this needs to be said.)
I know enough of both sides of this issue (by second and third hand
information) to realize that we, in this forum, cannot come to know
the
truth other than this -
one party is being financially injured by another.
This issue belongs in the courts. The issue cannot be settled by
being
"tried" on the RMMB.
Only a few things are clear to us: It is clear that RMMusicworks
(which I've
funded by purchase of both the BMW Pro and BMW Gold products) is aware
of Mr.
Wickstrom's shareware site and has been aware of it for the past 18
months.
It is also clear that RMMusicworks has not been legally able to get
that
site shut down and/or has not been diligent in trying to do so over
the past
18 months. Mr. Wickstrom is also clearly listed as co-owner of the
copyright on my copy of BMW Gold.
If and when this issue is settled by the courts, the financial
arrangements
between the two parties will be settled. At that time, Mr.
Wickstrom's site
will be closed because its continued existence will be contrary to any
rational decision.
Logically, then, as long as Mr. Wickstrom's site remains open, there
has
been no legally binding resolution to this issue. Until the site is
closed, in a "de facto" sense, the shareware version would appear to
be legal and available for all to use.
However, I'll continue to express my concerns to both sides that the
piping
and business communities would be better served by a legal settlement.
Only
then will improved versions of this or similar products be financially
viable.
Steve MacLeod
Portage, MI
thunderbirl
for the delay, but this needs to be said.)
Contrary to the statements of others, I received no support for my
questions
regarding bugs in BMW Gold. When I found the same problems in the
shareware
version, Mr. Wickstrom quickly provided code fixes. I found him to be
very
polite and certainly not abusive.
Even if he were, the statement that "this kind of response is
tantamount
to an admission of guilt", must not be allowed to stand.
I've been a "contract program" for hobbyist efforts and have found the
fulfillment of financial arrangements to be very weak. In the
excitement
of getting the project moving, the "details" are often left until
later.
Dealing with them later has made me very irritable and has cost a
couple
friendships. (In contrast, financial arrangments are always clearly
detailed in contracts when doing similar work with companies.)
Regarding the issue of "theft". Mr. Wickstrom is clearly listed as a
co-copyright holder on my copy of BMW Gold. This doesn't define the
MrRobotTow
>I know enough of both sides of this issue (by second and third hand
>information) t
In other words. less than most of us have.
> Mr. Wickstrom is also clearly listed as co-owner of the
>copyright on my copy of BMW Gold.
Maybe the reason that no legal action has been taken?
>Logically, then, as long as Mr. Wickstrom's site remains open, there
>has
>been no legally binding resolution to this issue. Until the site is
>closed, in a "de facto" sense, the shareware version would appear to
>be legal and available for all to use.
Yes it is, and all these calls of "stealing" are just pure BS! Because if it
were stolen it would be closed by now. He IS a listed owner.
MrRobotTow
>
Well since I'm not a code writer, that seems unlikely.
MrRobotTow
>rate) have great credibility. Bob Dunsire and Bruce Wright
So Bruces "trial by rudeness" makes him guilty then? I read his post and fail
to see where being rude makes someone guilty of being a thief.
MrRobotTow
>regarding bugs in BMW Gold. When I found the same problems in the shareware
>version, Mr. Wickstrom quickly provided code fixes. I found him to be very
>polite and certainly not abusive.
I had similar experiences with him.
>Even if he were, the statement that "this kind of response is tantamount
>to an admission of guilt", must not be allowed to stand.
I agree, trial by rudeness does not stand, and I admit it surprises me coming
from Bruce.
>Regarding the issue of "theft". Mr. Wickstrom is clearly listed as a
>co-copyright holder on my copy of BMWGold. This doesn't define the
>arrangment, but sounds like something well above the level of "coder body".
Yep!
>I hope that others will join me in asking Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Wickstrom to
>settle their differences in court.
If there were a legal case that would've been done long ago, and I don't buy
the "were too poor to sue him" excuse.
Steve and Bonnie MacLeod
truth other than this -
one party is being financially injured by another.
This issue belongs in the courts. The issue cannot be settled by being
"tried" on the RMMB.
It is clear that RMMusicworks (which I've funded by purchase of both the DOS
and Windows products) is aware of Mr. Wickstrom's shareware site and has
been aware of it for the past 18 months. It is also clear that RMMusicworks
has not been legally able to get that site shut down and/or has not been
diligent in trying to do so over the past 18 months.
If and when this issue is settled by the courts, the financial arrangements
between the two parties will be settled. At that time, Mr. Wickstrom's site
will be closed because its continued existence will be contrary to any
decision.
Logically, then, as long as Mr. Wickstrom's site remains open, there has
been no legal decision. Until the site is closed, in a "de facto" sense,
the shareware version appears to be legal and available for all to use.
Steve and Bonnie MacLeod
information) to realize that we, in this forum, cannot come to know the
truth other than this -
one party is being financially injured by another.
This issue belongs in the courts. The issue cannot be settled by being
"tried" on the RMMB.
It is clear that RMMusicworks (which I've funded by purchase of both the DOS
and Windows products) is aware of Mr. Wickstrom's shareware site and has
been aware of it for the past 18 months. It is also clear that RMMusicworks
has not been legally able to get that site shut down and/or has not been
diligent in trying to do so over the past 18 months.
If and when this issue is settled by the courts, the financial arrangements
between the two parties will be settled. At that time, Mr. Wickstrom's site
will be closed because its continued existence will be contrary to any
decision.
Logically, then, as long as Mr. Wickstrom's site remains open, there has
been no legal decision. Until the site is closed, in a "de facto" sense,
the shareware version appears remains legal and available for all to use.
Steve and Bonnie MacLeod
I know enough of both sides of this issue (by second and third hand
information) to realize that we, in this forum, cannot come to know the
truth other than this -
one party is being financially injured by another.
This issue belongs in the courts. The issue cannot be settled by being
"tried" on the RMMB.
Only a few things are clear to us: It is clear that RMMusicworks (which I've
funded by purchase of both the DOS and Windows products) is aware of Mr.
Wickstrom's shareware site and has been aware of it for the past 18 months.
It is also clear that RMMusicworks has not been legally able to get that
site shut down and/or has not been diligent in trying to do so over the past
18 months. Mr. Wickstrom is also clearly listed as co-owner of the
copyright on my copy of BMW Gold.
If and when this issue is settled by the courts, the financial arrangements
between the two parties will be settled. At that time, Mr. Wickstrom's site
will be closed because its continued existence will be contrary to any
rational decision.
Logically, then, as long as Mr. Wickstrom's site remains open, there has
been no legal decision. Until the site is closed, in a "de facto" sense,
the shareware version appears to be legal and available for all to use.
E. K. Smith
E. K. Smith
Ken
Bill
"E. K. Smith" <ReplyOnlyToT...@use.net> wrote in message
news:3bebdb4e...@news2.wwnet.net...
> huh?
That about sums up your understanding of the situation...
Bob Dunsire
posting..
But first, a comment:
My filters must be working very well, because I find this discussion to be
quite reasonable..
Now..
<< shareware site and has been aware of it for the past 18 months.
It is also clear that RMMusicworks has not been legally able to get that
site shut down and/or has not been diligent in trying to do so over the past
18 months. >>
I'll limit comments to the above. (trying to be relatively brief):
1st.. I think you'll find that shareware is most commonly quite a bit different
that what ol' dougie is doing.. iin my experience: try, share, and pay if you
like / plan to use it..
I admit, I have not been to Dougie' site in a long time (imagine this.... I
don't have the link.. kind of funny isn't it?), and even when I visited (a
long time ago), I didn't look at his terms and conditions too carefully, but I
do know what he is trying to do.. (Hurt the rightful owner - and nothing else)
2nd.. a) Do you have any idea what is required to shut down a web site?
ii) Do you really think that because a web site exists, it is legal?
I am not suggesting that I know the complete answer to a), but I know a bit..
I can tell you that it can be easy the first time or two, but at some point
the effort to shut down a web site can / will / might require legal expenses,
and court actions...
And, I know, these expense can mount very quickly..
I think at that point, one must step back and decide..why spend the money? If
the damage has already been done, perhaps spending money could mean throwing it
away - is there is enough money involved to simply throw some away? (Ever?).
There is a natural (I think) temptation to say.. "But I am right" however
(IMHO), throwing lots of money at lawyers just to say that in court is very
difficult to justify in the adult world.
Not trying to fan the flames here - the fact is I know there are thousands of
web sites on the Net doing illegal stuff - I worry when I see a sugggestion
that because a web site exists it must mean there is some validity / legality
to its actions - either from the view of the law, or from the view of the party
being damaged..
My goodness.. it is just the Net.. we have nearly everything available here,
and we (!) get to decide how to act..
P.Drysdale
P.Drysdale <P.Dry...@worldonline.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
9s9bsc$8vc$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
> Hi you all,
I did not realize that my question would bring so many reactions.
Anyhow,I do know now that this is all about a program which of course
can and may be purchased and that's all I wanted to know.
Thanks for the information that brought me a step further
to playing the file that was sent to me lately of the tune 'Mist Covered
Mountains'
Cheers,
Peter D.