benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas Cox) (10/30/85)
[]
Our story so far: 1) is .sources.mac useful to mac owners? yes.
2) is shareware worth using? sometimes, yes.
3) should the net carry shareware? not settled. yes & no.
4) arguments for carrying shareware?
A. useful programs/fonts/DA's for free
B. said useful things support the USENET community
5) arguments against?
A. primarily, that the authors of shareware 'stand to gain' [i. e. make
money] from the USENET's freely distributing said shareware.
B. possibly others. See net.micro.mac and net.news.
6) solution:
A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of
out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to
enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted.
B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware
payments.
--
Thomas Cox
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
But of COURSE everything is unique.
If they weren't, they'd all be one thing.gus@Shasta.ARPA (11/01/85)
> > A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of > out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to > enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted. > B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware > payments. While I might see that benefits of moderating Net.Sources.Mac, I believe that most of the "chatter" that would be eliminated accounts for a small fraction of the total volume. Those utilities that are re-posted, such as PackIt worm a core of utilities required for up/downloading, and SHOULD be periodically re-posted every few months for the benefit of newcomers. There is a LOT of good software being posted on the net and nothing should be done to discourage downloading it. Anyone who objects to having shareware on the net should also remove all brand names from everything that they own, as this counts for "advertising" just as much as any other form in that the creator stands to gain byt having other (non-owners) note the presence of the product in the world. Many other nets (such as CompuServe) have no stipulations regarding Shareware. TThis would limit cross-postings to Net.Sources.Mac and thus limit the range of choices available to the Mac users on Usenet. I am not making a statement regarding shareware. I am simply trying to avoid a situation by which an author might be tempted not to post his program because he could not ask others for a voluntary donation for his efforts. It is up to the users to decide whether to pay or not.
dws@tolerant.UUCP (Dave W. Smith) (11/01/85)
In article <1256@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP, (Thomas Cox) writes: > 6) solution: ... >B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware > payments. > Thomas Cox >...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn The issue is not "is shareware a bad thing". The issue is, as I see it, the use of USENET as a profit making vehicle. The secondary issue is bandwidth. Consider a book. If the author where to use USENET to hawk his work, this would be a clear violation. After all, he stands to profit. Now, if I were to post a message recommending the book, would that be o.k.? After all, you (or someone) would still have to buy the book, and the author would profit. Right? There's still money involved, so should we issue a proclamation discouraging people from recommending or buying books? I think not. Now consider shareware. (Let's ignore for a moment the 10% that gets posted by the authors themselves -- this can be dealt with within existing policy.) The differences between someone posting a piece of shareware that they've found useful and someone posting a book recommen- dation are 1) bandwidth, and 2) you get to try the shareware out before deciding if you want to keep it (or pay for it). The difference, as it should concern USENET, is 1) bandwidth, and the fact that somebody (read everybody) has to pay for it. An effective way to deal with bandwidth is to add some filtering. A moderated group for mac postings should deal with this nicely. -- David W. Smith {nsc,ucbvax}!tolerant!dws Tolerant Systems, Inc. 408/946-5667 [Standard Disclaimer]
svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (11/04/85)
In article <1256@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas Cox) writes: >[] > 4) arguments for carrying shareware? > >A. useful programs/fonts/DA's for free >B. said useful things support the USENET community C. its been my experience that shareware is performs better (ie. less bugs, nicer user interface, more polished) and has better documentation than most public domain software. This makes sense. Who's going to send money to someone for a lousy program. On the other hand, there is little incentive for the authors of PD software to maintain and/or enhance their programs. I mean, after all, maintanence is a dirty job so nobody wants to do it, right (-|? I realize that many PD authors take great pride in doing a good job, but there are some that figure that once its up and running, their job is done. Debugging is often very frustrating and boring. > > 5) arguments against? > >A. primarily, that the authors of shareware 'stand to gain' [i. e. make > money] from the USENET's freely distributing said shareware. >B. possibly others. See net.micro.mac and net.news. > > 6) solution: > >A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of > out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to > enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted. As long as the policy that is adopted is what the majority wants and is not the decision of just a few persons.
harrow@exodus.DEC (Jeff Harrow, NCSE LKG1-3/F16 DTN=226-7445) (02/12/86)
Regarding a recent article complaining that, although he had paid the Sharewre fee for Red Ryder, he had not received anything since V5 (now V7). I too have had a problem here, but with FEdit. About a month ago I sent in an order and my $35 to the author for the new, HFS version of FEdit, yet haven't received anything back... (Are you listening?) Jeff