dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (04/07/89)
Thank-you all for posting and mailing your detailed comments on the
issue of whether commercial software should be posted to
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.
It seems clear that a large number of Usenet users do want commercial
shareware (which I will call "payware") to be posted. At the same
time, there are a significant number of people, including me, who think
that no Usenet site should be asked to bear the cost of transporting
such software against its will.
I also think that not all Usenet sites object to payware. For example,
UUNET recovers its costs by charging subscribers, and sites connecting
to it may well want to receive payware and be willing to pay for it.
There must be other sites, especially the smaller ones that also have
some sort of BBS-type operation, that want to distribute such software
to their users.
Therefore the new proposed policy for comp.binaries.ibm.pc is as
follows:
Shareware that requires payment is acceptable, provided it is
functional enough to be useful (i.e., not crippleware). Such
software will be posted in such a way that the article header
will identify it as payware. Individual sites will be able
to configure their news software to automatically suppress
transmission of such articles if they wish.
Implementing this will require a small patch to "inews", the program
that handles all incoming and outgoing news at UNIX sites. I discussed
this with Joe Buck, a news guru, and the scheme seems workable. He and
I will have more to say about this soon.
Unless unforeseen problems arise (or persuasive arguments to the
contrary are made), the above policy will become effective a few weeks
from now. The implementation details must be worked out first. Until
then, I will happily accept payware submissions, but I will hold them
in a "pending" state. There are enough things in the input queue that
you will not feel the temporary loss.
The effect will be that all sorts of shareware will be posted and will
be propagated everywhere. Most news administrators are probably busy
enough that they won't take any special action to block payware. But
those who are moved to do so will still be able to do so. This leaves
the decision to individual sites, who pay the bills, which is the way
things ought to be.
I hope this policy will satisfy all Usenet users. Comments are
welcome.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edustever@pnet51.cts.com (David Stever) (04/11/89)
How will we know if the sites upstream from us have chosen to impliment a cut off of these so called 'payware' packages? Will I thusly be cut off from some future upgrade to QMODEM, just because someone wanted to cut down on bandwidth? Nothing real hard & fast here, Rahul, but this leaves me cold. | ~David Stever~ | {RoseVAX, Crash}!Orbit!Pnet51!Stever --------------------------------| "Sitting on my face, looking |Internet (1): Stever@Pnet51.Cts.Com for a rainbow" Mark Twain |Internet (2): Stever@SP.Unisys.Com |(2) work (1) recreation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great Pyrenees: Not just a dog- an adventure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------