John Gruber at Daring Fireball wrote:

MacHeist’s organizers and defenders are arguing that no one forced the participating developers to agree to their terms, and that these developers are in fact happy with how the promotion is going, and that the users who’ve purchased the bundle are delighted with the price. But none of these things are in dispute.

What’s in dispute is whether the money is being distributed equitably.

Huh? Equitable distribution is directly related to the terms of the agreement, which the developers voluntarily accepted. How can it be in dispute? Moreover, how can it be in dispute by a third party who is not privy to the agreement? It’s one thing to have a gripe with MacHeist’s promotional slant. It’s quite another to take exception to an agreement in which you’re not a party. Certainly everyone will have their own opinion, but that hardly qualifies as a dispute.

macheist, daring fireball, dispute, free will, third party, privy, agreement