Rodney Rudd did perforce elucidate . . .

>TM> What's so bizarre about that?  Lots of PC software has
>TM>licensing fees.  
>
>I think it's bizarre no matter who does it. I know what a
>licensing fee is, and I know what a suggested retail price 
>is. But what the heck is a "suggested licensing fee?"
 
In practice, a 'suggested retail price' is identical to a 
'suggested licencing fee'. The name change has been made (likely) 
to make licence ownership more enforcable. Though it may rarely 
come up in a Small Claims Court battle, when it does, 
inconsistencies will augur poorly for the aggrieved copyright 
holder. 
  
Lets' not question Wilga or Gribnif too closely, unless of 
course(!) we've got a technical question. I am not their 
spokesperson, but I do support any fair and legal change they 
have to make, in order to continue developing all of their 
excellent products.
  
Gribnif products have been spread around (illegaly), with 
unbridled glee. My own distributed products (SARA software, 
lately), have been illegaly spread around with unbridled glee. 
ANYTHING that I can do to lay my hands on the little shits that 
steal my software . . . I WILL DO! If 'anything', includes 
protectively re-wording my packaging (or packaging on other 
products distributed by ABC Solutions), I will do so.
  
In our comparatively *tiny* market, even the loss of 4 or 5 sales 
to illegal copying or outright piracy is deeply hurtful to 
individual, TOS/GEM software authors. When your excellent 
products generate weekly sales that can be counted on the fingers 
of two hands (or less), how can the loss of even one sale be 
countenanced?
Howard

---
* Kivi 1.41a * - Too many questions, too few answers, too little silence -
--- FiFo V2.1o [IOSmail 0.89]

[+/59 of 200/108 Mins] = * FIDO: ST_PROG =: Next...