Use Red-Gate''s backup... and Go to Jail???
-
Edited by the Editor
I have removed this post, which is a copy of a blog post from InfoWorld that questions Red Gate licensing.
Questioning this is ok, but disclosure is preferred. As is posting under the Red Gate forum for discussion. The author, Bob Boule, is product manager for Litespeed. You can read the blog post here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/dbunderground/archives/2007/02/use_redgates_ba.html
Steve Jones
-
Please don't spam the forums. If you have a concern with the way Red Gate handles their licensing there are better ways to handle it.
-
Quite a coincidence that you have the same name as a product manager for Quest LiteSpeed, a competing product.
http://qlist1.quest.com/read/messages?id=17779
-
Steve -
although I agree this is potentially "dirty pool" (although I can't tell since you've edited the post) - I don't think you have the moral authority anymore to question disclosure issues.
You allowed Red-Gate to falsely label this site as "Supported by Red-Gate" and only changed it after outcry by the community. Red-Gate ran ads in newsletter as "sponsered by [some red-gate product]" - which was a total misrepresentation perpetrated on this community.
You continue to allow the false inference that you are "in charge" -as per the About section. When you work for Red-Gate (Red-Gate is mentioned almost in passing in the very last sentence). You indicated that you were debating the aforementioned issue about the disclaimer - debate with who - you run the site? I "run" ApexSQL - I don't debate with anybody.
So if you feel so strongly about "full disclosure" - enforce the false pretenses of Red-Gate as well and fix the disclosure issues that remain on this site!
If you have rules of conduct, disclosure, ethics on this site post them so we can all read them. vs administering "justice" on an ad hoc basis as you have done here according to rules you make up on the fly.
Does Shill Factor disclose that he is paid by Red-Gate? or does he write tons of meaningless drivel for free - not sure which is worse. He has actively Shilled for Red-Gate with no disclosure at all that he writes for Red-Gate and is probably paid by them.
This guy posted it on the Quest forum and with his real name. Maybe he wasn't trying to hide and just didn't want sqlservercentral newsletters sent to his quest address (I wouldn't). Simply outing this guy is enough - editing the post is censorship.
But it still looks bad and probably was bad. Quest has been a pretty good competitor. I think they've tried to take the high road - especially vs that bogus benchmark RG is pushing. So it's ironic that Quest managed to do the impossible today and make Red-Gate look good.
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
Brian, Steve has included the link to the source in his edited post at the top of this thread so its not being censored - he just removed it from here as inappropriate. I would say that is ethical editorship (if that's a word!).
-
In the fairness of "Full Disclosure" I also use to be the product manager for LiteSpeed.
I think this was mishandled all the way around. Bob was trying so hard to "hide" he worked for Quest he used his real name! I have also always used my real name and my personal email address. I never used my Imceda or Quest email address after that.
Steve, you know Sean over at Infoworld, if you really thought there was a copyright violation you could have easily contacted him, or asked Bob to do the things you wanted him to do to fix the post, he would have done it in a second.
Was his post bad form? Sure. Was it a crime against the State? Not quite.
If you "contract" for someone, you work for that someone. I contract to several companies at the moment. I work AND represent them all, If I didn't want that responsibility I wouldn't have taken the money. Saying your not an employee of Red Gate implies you don't represent them. Just because you don't know the licensing details doesn't absolve you from being a spokesperson for them.
This is what people were talking about at the summit, that this site would loose it's objectivity. I have a hard time believing you would have done this last year when Quest was still a sponsor of the site, but I have been wrong before, I know you can get very passionate about a subject once it is on your mind.
As far as disclosure, I am not an employee of Quest but I am a friend to Bob and to say he doesn't have the stones to do something is like saying the Pope is Protestant.
Cheers,
Wes
-
Hm, there are people complaining that Steve "outed" Bob (which I take to mean that we all know now who Bob works for), and then others who state that Bob was trying sooo hard to hide that he used his real name.
Sorry, folks - I didn't know who Bob worked for until today, so using his real name is NOT an indication of who he works for. If I had read his original post, I would have assumed that he was a a DBA or a developer, not a vendor.
The issues with the post were two-fold: # 1 Bob should have identified himself as a competitor against the product he was addressing. I don't really care who else does what - either Bob is ethical, or he isn't. #2 If Bob wanted to share the information in someone elses blog, he could have simply included the link (as Steve did on editting the post) and noted the general topic matter. If Bob is intelligent enough to be a Product Manager, then he knows what plagarism is, and he knows why it should not be done - again we're back to ethics here, and this is pretty basic stuff.
Bob made a mistake - and he got caught and exposed. Hopefully he'll learn something from it. But trying to obfuscate the issue by dredging up "censorship" issues and attacking Steve is a mistake too.
I agree that this site needs to be clear about who owns it and runs it. But that does not absolve anyone else who uses the site from being ethical.
Disclaimer: I don't work for any software vendors, and the opinions expressed are my own.
Here there be dragons...,Steph Brown
-
Just to finish this off.
Brian, what would you want done if someone posted this "use x software and have your mother killed"? (ok a little more to the extreme but still...) Especially flooding this on 8 different threads in 2 minutes.
I agree that this site should allow free speech but there are clearly some cases where the cost of free speech is a little too high. And I think this one was on that very short list of things to take care of. I would not feel right with this plagarism in the first place, but a competitor doing this without full disclosure just seems wrong to me too.
I can understand for a need to "undermine" the competition when you are in business. But it has to be done in a more obvious way. Right now I'm thinking about the apple VS pc commercials that seem to have run for over 2 years. While I don't agree with everything said in those commercials, I, as a customer, have the benefit of seing both points of views and choosing either product. There was no such obvious choice in this case unless you knew who Bob Boule was.
Disclaimer: I just work for myself and I'm not associated with any software vendor.
-
I agree on the whole "contract with Red-Gate" thing. The issue of Steve claiming HE is "running the site" (vs RG) to me is the ultimate disclosure hypocrisy - given his zeal in "outing" of others.
where I grew up if you took money from someone over an extended period of time and weren't giving them anything but your labor ... you were working for them! Only in the Orwellian netherworld of sqlservercentral/red-gate do owners "support the site" vs owning it, or "sponser ads" vs owning them, or "contract with" people rather than employ them.
somewhere between Red-Gate's offer and Steve's acceptance he lost his way and became an enabler. Steve has managed the mechanics of this site well - but his constant equivocation and foot dragging on critical issues of disclosure - coupled with his aggressive stance in outing other companies tells me he's no longer independent but just another cog in the Red-Gate marketing/propaganda machine.
for the record this guys original post was at best stupid - I went back and it was worse than what I thought originally. but it's a drop in the bucked compared to the scale of the fraudulent disclosure/disclaimers Red-Gate has attempted to foist on this community and continues to do so with Steve's active assistance.
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
Ninja,
I agree this posting was bad. I went back and looked at the different threads and this was *worse* than I originally thought. I don't defend this guy's original post and in fact I condemn it. (on probably more levels than most people would since I think it also detracts from my points about this site)
But my major problem is Steve seems to be above the law - he is the judge, jury and executioner for posters and yet won't hold himself to the same high standard. He is the arbitrator of the bogus disclaimers on the site itself - and only caved due to pressure from the community to change "Supported by Red-Gate" but then swoops in on some knucklehead posting crap using his real name like he is the town sherriff.
What this site desperately needs is an Ombudsman - someone who ISN'T a paid employee of Red-Gate (or "contracted with" Red-Gate using the orwellian vernacular on this site) and who everyone agrees has some creds in this community.
I have some suggestions
SQLBill shoots pretty straight
Brian Kelly is also a good guy who calls it like he sees it.
This ombudsman has no power but has a column where he can state what he thinks on issues. My guess is that any ombudman worth his salt would be extremely negative about how this site is currently managed (competitors kicked off, bogus disclosures, bogus About page, hypocrisy) until some things change
The problem with money is it corrupts - not all at once but one ethical lapse at a time. a false disclaimer here, a bit of hypocrisy there, some double standards here. What we are witnessing is Red-Gate corrupting a venerable institution a little bit at a time.
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
Brian
If you want to warn people about the licensing, you can just put the title 'licensing' and put the link in the post. The title was a bit 'hostile'.
You don't want people going to Quest forum and put down hostile title, do you?
-
Stephanie,
I'm not trying to obfuscate the issue - I agree 100% with what you say about Bob. I don't absolve Bob from anything and condemn his actions. The more I looked at this the worse it looked to me.
But let's hold this site to the same high standard as we hold Bob - can we agree on that?
My problem is the hypocrisy. Steve outs Bob for failing to disclose who he works for but is guilty of the same exact thing.
a note on plagarism as well. A few year's back, I reported a guy who had illegally obtained source code to one of our apps (when we sold source). He changed some icons and posted it as his app. then advertised briefly on this site. When I complained about it to SSC and even offered to send them proof Steve's retort was "his money is as good as yours but if you win in a lawsuit we'll take down the banner". Ironically this vendor's money WASN'T as good as mine - as he never paid his bill - which I thought was poetic justice.
But again - it's convenient to have high ethics when it doesn't cost you anything (calling out people who plagarize articles) but as soon as money is involved then things are different. This guy was giving SSC money so I would have had to spend $50K and 2 years to sue him in order for Steve to do the right thing. Right now Red-Gate is giving this site money - does it have an effect? you tell me.
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
A couple comments. I'm not saying I was right, but I think I did what I would have done last year or the year before.
I stated that I wasn't an employee of Red Gate. I definitely work for them and I definitely get paid by them under contract. It's a distinction and while I might not be completely unbiased, I wasn't before either when Quest, Apex, sqlSentry and others paid my salary in addition to Red Gate through advertising.
If you'd like an omnibudsman, I'd be interested to know how we can get someone to do it without pay. Or who's indepdendent. Post some answers and I'd certainly entertain Mr. Bill or Mr. Kelley's comments.
Brian, we haven't always agreed, maybe rarely, but I do give you credit for standing behind your comments. I think I have always done the same and I don't appreciate you implying otherwise.
The "Supported by" wasn't a good term and I got it changed. I responded to comments and criticisms from the community. And I will continue to do so.
I think I would have done it last year. I also don't think I called it a crime, but bad manners. And a potential copyright violation, not for sure.
I'm happy for people to disagree and tell me I'm wrong. Heck, I'm probably wrong more than right on a lot of things. Despite my disagreement, I appreciate hearing your thoughts.
-
this was the title of the article in question
http://weblog.infoworld.com/dbunderground/archives/2007/02/use_redgates_ba.html
the Quest guy just copied this title as the subject of his post(s).
you might have me confused with someone else - I don't care what is posted in Quest forums. hmmm - maybe *I'm* a Quest employee too and I don't even know it.
everytime I come back to "SQL Community 1984" I get real confused ....
Brian Lockwood
President
ApexSQL - SQL Developer Essentials -
Sorry Brian. It was Bob.
But my idea was just put out the link would be enough and the title, well, let people be the judge.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 29 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply