Nowhere in its description in PackageManager does it say it is in fact a commercial release and requires a 3rd-party License purchase in order to be installed.
I do not know if it’s just overlooking on McNeel side that they didn’t expect people trying to exploit the easy distribution tool, or an mistake by the developer not enclosing this important fact or perhaps a deliberate act by the developer to boost their download count.
Whichever it is there is a problem.
I usually download plugins to test and see if I could find even one or two single components or commands that could fit my workflow. I bet many do that but this practice to install plugins filling my PC system folders and registry with garbage residue just to uninstall them (leaving some of the garbage residue inside) without even being able to test the software I find unacceptable and unethical.
Hi Ivelin -
I agree that this is problematic.
The 3rd party developer should, of course, include highly relevant information such as price.
We have an item on our list (RH-59957 - not visible to the public) to look into that type of issues and this specific case was added to that report.
In the meanwhile, you might want to stick to Food4Rhino if you really want to avoid running into this.
-wim
Probably not. Embedding a browser in the PackageManager dialog to display the Food4Rhino page is probably not on the agenda. Making sure that key fields (License, Platform, etc.) are available in the dialog, on the other hand, is. I’ve added your comment and mockup to item RH-59957 (not visible to the public).
We have item YAK-25 (not visible to the public) on the list to figure out how to do this. I’ve added your comment.
-wim
