Where do I apply for a free License ?

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Friday March 12 2004 - 17:49:22 GMT

I read the following in the FAQ section:

'The only way to get a copy of the menu without the link is to either purchase a license or make a requst for a free license. There is currently a small admin charge for processing free licenses.'

So where do I apply ?!

Poster: bobwill
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 0:18:23 GMT

Check out the following link. Should answer your question.
http://www.milonic.com/purfaq.php

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 0:41:49 GMT

I mean, where do I apply for the FREE menu. I see no hints as to where I should apply for a free menu at http://www.milonic.com/purfaq.php ?

Poster: John
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 0:52:38 GMT

Go to http://www.milonic.com/ and scroll down to 'DHTML Menu Licensing'.

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 1:12:54 GMT

Ok, I though I needed a License number, but this will work fine

Poster: Ruth
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 4:56:56 GMT

I am thoroughly confused. Do you no longer need to get a license number? I thought even non profit or personal pages [with no money making or commercial stuff] still needed to apply for free license with a number?

Ruth

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 9:58:52 GMT

I was just as confused as you, but I guess you can just use the menu if you have a non-profit/hobby site. All you need to do is link back to http://www.milonic.com.

You only need to contact them if you are in doubt whether or not you are entitled to use a free license.

There is nowhere you can apply for the code.

If this is not the case, I hope Andy can tell us

Poster: Andy
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 10:56:50 GMT

Right, here's the score with the licensing.

If you want to use the menu and you are a company or you promote a company or your website has ANY involvement with a commercial, government or profit making organisation you'll need at lease a Pro License, PERIOD.

The link to request a non-profit has been removed whilst we have a re-think. We had a few people buy a Pro license then they thought they might be eligible for a freebie so demanded a refund for the Pro License then proceeded to get the menu at a discounted price.

Now, this is NOT the reason why we did the free licensing. Obviously these people can afford the Pro license and at one point were more than happy to pay for it. Once they realised that they could get it cheaper they wasted no time in trying to get their money back. This causes us an immense amount of additional administration with regards to our accounts. With refunds we have to process this on our regular tax returns. WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME FOR THIS and so the free licensing is now a problem again for us.

The free licensing WAS ONLY intended for legitimate users who either couldn't afford to pay for the menu or their cause was such that we were more than happy to help them help others. That's what it's all about and in a nutshell if you are helping others (WITHOUT GETTING PAID FOR IT) we are still more than happy to provide you with a free license.

Marty and I are going to work on this and we hope to have a definitive answer this weekend.

The bottom line is that even with the free licenses you STILL need to link back to us so by downloading the (LINKED) menu you can still use it as long as you are non-profit and link back to us. It's as simple as that. If you don't want the link you need a Pro license.

Regards
Andy Woolley
Milonic Solutions Ltd
http://www.milonic.com/

PS: I recently made a BIG mistake with the downloads in that all downloads was the full version regardless of whether you had a license or not, this was a genuine mistake I made to the code. When I did this I soon saw what a dramatic affect it had on our sales, they almost dried up completely. The downloads were up, the new users were on a par for that day but sales were almost non-existent. Now this shocked me with regard to the fact that the majority of people do not read the legal details and if they can get something for free (even though they still need to pay for it) they have no intention of reimbursing the entity that has worked so hard to provide that product. This just emphasises that we need to lock our code down and that is what we intend to do. It's not what we want but we simply must protect our intellectual property from being abused.

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 11:53:22 GMT

Thank you for sorting things out Andy, I was a bit confused

Having the menu check for a link back to http://www.milonic.com seems very fair to me!

I still like the idea, that you have to apply for a free license and pay an Administration fee to cover your expenses.

I understand your frustration about people wanting a refund and then applying for a free license. This is certainly not the right thing to do, but if people can save $30-40, they will most likely do it.

And no matter what you do, the 'theft of intellectual property' is a huge problem on the web. Whether it's downloading illegal music, cracking £1000 programs or stealing your menu - when all you need to do, is click a button a few times, a lot of people don't think twice about it.

Whatever you decide, I hope you can figure something out, that will benefit everyone

Poster: Ruth
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 18:34:38 GMT

I thoroughly agree. There is NO reason that a small administration fee should be considered onerous. In my humble opinion, it should apply to ALL licenses that are not fully paid pro + including non-profits. The charge is miniscule and it's not difficult to pay...meaning you give any number of options for payment, credit card, paypal etc. For all the work, for the marvelous design and the continued support in this forum for those with free products NO ONE can with a straight face tell me they cannot afford this small fee.

Sorry for the rant, but I bet some of these same people treat themselves to Mickey D's 2 or 3 times a week, to a night at the movies, to all kinds of 'goodies' at the supermarket! Heck, 3 trips to Mickey D's would pay that small fee; so guys have 3 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches instead and support the menu and marvelous work these guys have done and continue to do!

Ruth

Poster: John
Dated: Saturday March 13 2004 - 23:25:50 GMT

<hotbutton>
I have always been in favor of paying for the menu - PERIOD. BTW, keep in mind I do not work for Milonic. However, I'm closer than most here in seeing the fantastic effort put in by Andy and staff. No, that does not include the 'Team Members'. We volunteer at this because we enjoy it, and also because we deeply respect the man on the other end of the code.

For my money, anybody who steals this menu should be locked up. This is by far the best DHTML menu system around, and the cost is peanuts for what you get, AND compared to the cost of other systems.

If you deserve a free version (grumble), then fine. If you do not, then pay up. If you have already swiped the menu - pay up anyway. You'll feel better, and it's the right thing to do.
</hotbutton>

For those of you who have already done the right thing - thank you

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Thursday March 25 2004 - 18:37:36 GMT

Hi Andy, did you make a decision regarding the free menu licensing ?

Poster: John
Dated: Thursday March 25 2004 - 19:42:14 GMT

There's a quasi-new policy on the main site home page, and an additional bit from Andy here. Not sure when you saw it last...

Poster: Googolplex
Dated: Thursday March 25 2004 - 20:31:29 GMT

I am referring to:

'Marty and I are going to work on this and we hope to have a definitive answer this weekend.'

I see nothing new on the main page, so I'll just wait for Andy's answer

Poster: Ruth
Dated: Thursday March 25 2004 - 21:36:09 GMT

I know this gets to be an involved thing, but here's my suggestion

1. commercial, business, including non-profits who sell products for a commercial or business entity of any kind whether registered as such and get a share of the selling profits must buy a license. [I'm not referring to those who just provide sponsor links and ask that you visit their sponsors, only those who get a 'share' when something is sold.]

2. Any qualified to receive an admin fee license must apply for it and pay the fee or the Milonic link remains the first item in the menu always. In other words it cannot be removed without the application for the requisite qualifying license and payment of the small admin fee.

3. Once that requirement is met, the qualifying site must include a non hidden link to Milonic on their pages, THEN the link will disappear! By non-hidden I don't necessarily mean it's right smack in the middle or something, I just mean they can't do something like put it in no script tags, that kind of thing.

Now, I'm not sure what that means as to programming since I don't write such; maybe having to put something in the programming that would recognize some code in the license#, say np as part of the number which would make it look for a link on the page before it removed the Milonic link in the menu with that particular type of license?

Ruth

Poster: alabuc
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 17:47:51 BST

Just to be clear, I volunteer to maintain a website for a church youth group, would we qualify for a free license with a link back to milonic? I would think yes (because were non-profit) except...



we dont sell anything it just has information. thanks...

~Hal

Poster: John
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 18:21:21 BST

I think that statement you quoted, which comes from Andy, is pretty clear.

Poster: alabuc
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 19:31:06 BST

ok, please understand i am not trying to be a jerk... were are probably going to end up buying a license anyway, because the menu is a good product... but, if i am building a website for a youth group thats not related to a religious organization in any way, i do qualify, but if i build the exact same website for a youth group involved with a church, then i have to buy the license?

Poster: Maz
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 21:24:47 BST

Well, I understand what you are saying, but its not my decision. And its a fine line that you are stepping on because there are different tax codes per se, regarding organizations that are considered religious and those that perform public duties regardless of religion, race, decree or whatever. The politically correct thing has got way out of hand for me, you know whether its okay be gay in the boy scouts or if a school says a prayer, or how do you swear on a bible if its not allowed in the court room. This is really not the place to get into that, and I don't think Andy want's to be confronted by differences of opinion. If I were you I would have asked Andy privately if an exception was possible by showing proof of what it is. But then again we don't want everyone to be wasting his time. I'll assume you are young, probably part of the youth group, and should realize in future that if you ask for an exception to a rule its best not to do it publicly. >

maz

Poster: alabuc
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 21:38:56 BST

:-/ you have a good point, sorry for the controversy . I'll be more considerate next time, after all i do believe the people who did the work to make the menu should definitly be able to decide the rules when it comes to giving it away. Sorry everyone...

~Hal

Poster: John
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 21:50:39 BST

Apology not necessary, and nobody thought you were "trying to be a jerk". You have a legitimate question.

However, as Maz explained very well, we don't make the rules (nor do any of the Team Members work for Milonic). The free vs. pay issue is a tough item, and has caused much grief and anguish lately. Andy is trying to be as fair as possible while still trying to remain in business!

Poster: alabuc
Dated: Thursday April 1 2004 - 22:00:48 BST

understood! You may be right, maybe getting rid of free licenses all together isnt a bad idea.

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Monday April 5 2004 - 23:59:34 BST

Just to clear up a potential misunderstanding, the following quote from Andy appeared earlier in the thread:

The "religious organisation" part came up in an off-line discussion recently, at which time it came to light that the exclusion of religious organizations was unintentional. Chalk it up to Andy having been temporarily inhabited by some sort of cyber demon. After being properly exorcised, you may notice that Andy has edited his post to read:

I think "at lease" means "at least"... not that you can rent a license.

So.... the upshot is that religious organizations, including prophet-oriented ones ( couldn't resist), may still qualify for free licensing.

Hope that cleared up some confusion, without introducing more!

Kevin