a1318@mindlink.UUCP (Kent Cavaghan) (10/21/90)
This is primarily aimed at the software(especially the shareware)
authors we have reading the net.
I have noticed that many of the programs coming across the net
will not allow their distribution by way of PD software
distributors.As well,some do not will their software to be distributed
on commercial systems such as Genie and Compu-serve.
I wish to know why such a prejudice?(No flame,I am just curious)
What is it about PD distributors that authors don't like?While I
am not connected with any such distributors,I will admit I have
thought along such lines and as such would like the authors point of
view.
Is it that most distributors after purchasing disks,checking out
the programs,cataloging them,creating some sort of sales catalog,etc.,
try to make a profit on the disks to cover their time and effort?
The reason I ask,is for several years I was without a modem as
well as being a long distance toll charge from any user group or
BBS.My only option was such distributors and with one exception I
found their prices for their time and effort to be reasonable.I wonder
wether some authors understand that the reason distributors exist is
to provide a service that people want(or in my case,needed).I would
think that for a shareware author,the widest distribution would bring
the best results.
Since my interest is strictly for the ST,I thought I would ask
here,but since this post is not of general interest(I don't think
:}),I would ask that all replies be by E-Mail to save bandwith.
My thanks for your time and considerations,
Kent Cavaghan
P.S. Please,no flames;at this point I am just curious about some
seemly contradictions.I will sumarize to the net if there is enough
interest.
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kent Cavaghan | "Machines are only Human" /
/ Vancouver, B.C. Canada | /
/Usenet-Kent_Cavaghan@Mindlink.UUCP | Karel Capek-Czechoslovak /
/F-net -Kent Cavaghan@Node #448 | Playwright-1920 /
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Any and All Disclaimers are Welcome Here!! /
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
david@doe.utoronto.ca (David Megginson) (10/23/90)
In article <3605@mindlink.UUCP> a1318@mindlink.UUCP (Kent Cavaghan) writes: > I have noticed that many of the programs coming across the net >will not allow their distribution by way of PD software >distributors.As well,some do not will their software to be distributed >on commercial systems such as Genie and Compu-serve. > > I wish to know why such a prejudice?(No flame,I am just curious) GEnie tries to keep people from redistributing files on the system, even if they are freeware or PD (remember, these are not synonymous). Their rules state that you cannot redistribute _any_ file, but since that was ridiculously unenforceable, I have heard that they only copyright the collection as a whole now. I think that a lot of people find this policy about as offensive as Apple's "Look and Feel" lawsuits. I have never been on GEnie, and report the rules only second-hand. I like the net because it's free, open, and everyone is very helpful (it's nice to help other people too). David Megginson -- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / David Megginson david@doe.utoronto.ca / / Centre for Medieval Studies meggin@vm.epas.utoronto.ca / ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) (10/25/90)
In article <3605@mindlink.UUCP> a1318@mindlink.UUCP (Kent Cavaghan) writes: > > I have noticed that many of the programs coming across the net >will not allow their distribution by way of PD software >distributors.As well,some do not will their software to be distributed >on commercial systems such as Genie and Compu-serve. > > I wish to know why such a prejudice?(No flame,I am just curious) > > What is it about PD distributors that authors don't like?While I >am not connected with any such distributors,I will admit I have >thought along such lines and as such would like the authors point of >view. > > Is it that most distributors after purchasing disks,checking out >the programs,cataloging them,creating some sort of sales catalog,etc., >try to make a profit on the disks to cover their time and effort? > >-- >///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >/ Kent Cavaghan | "Machines are only Human" / >/ Vancouver, B.C. Canada | / >/Usenet-Kent_Cavaghan@Mindlink.UUCP | Karel Capek-Czechoslovak / >/F-net -Kent Cavaghan@Node #448 | Playwright-1920 / >///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >/ Any and All Disclaimers are Welcome Here!! / >///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > This is not a flame, so if I go off the deep end, just realize who is posting the message. <grin>. I too would consider myself to be one of these pd/shareware authors who included notices in his software that it may not be distributed by PD software distributors. That was one (of MANY) reasons why I abandoned shareware and went commercial. I have had bad experiences with a number of such PDSDs. I will not name any names since some of them might read this, but they include some well known ones that advertize in Atari magazines, some Atari magazines themselves, and user groups. The idea itself seems quite simple. Collect PD software, catalog it, put it on disks, and then sell it for a profit. However, most people who try it turn out to be complete morons who don't know what they're doing. A few of my programs that hace suffered through this process are ST Xformer and Quick ST (the original, not Quick ST II). For example, with ST Xformer, there were 4 really major releases (1.2, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.5). Back then (1987 through 1989) I had this silly notion that most Atari ST users had modems and would be able to download this software from their local BBS or from Compuserve/GEnie/BIX etc. This of course, was a bad assumption. What started to happen is that most people got it from user group libraries or from these mail order PDSDs. I would start getting phone calls from peole telling me the software wouldn't boot up, and when I asked them about it, it turned out that files were missing, documentation was missing, etc. The problem with Xformer is that there were several megabytes of files associated with it (executables, data files, doc files, etc). What most PDSDs did was try to pick out the most important files and cram them on to a 360K or 400K disk. WROOOOOONG!!! What really pissed me off was when I released an update, they would either ignored the update and keep selling the old files (why the hell did I bother to make an update then!!!) or they would mix old files with new files, or worse, they would continue to sell both versions. WHY!!!?!?!?!?!?? Can they not simply remove the old disk and replace it with the new? And then of course, I got steamed because people who purchased ST Xformer from a PDSD would call me up at 3am and bitch about the problems, and when I explained to them that if they sent me the $15 shareware fee that they would receive complete docs and complete software, they would tell me to f*** off because they've already PAID FOR THE PROGRAM AND WHY SHOULD THEY PAY AGAIN? I had a guy come up to my both at the recent San Jose World Of Atari demanding that I give him a free copy of the ST Xformer user's manual. First of all, I didn't have any on me, and secondly, just because he got the software for free doesn't mean that he's entitled to free manuals. Even though ST Xformer 2.5 has been out as PD for over a year, a lot of the PDSD and boards don't have it. They have an old version of Xformer. What really gets me is that Atari had threatened to sue me over ST Xformer, saying that it was illegal, and that I couldn't sell it commercially. Yet many of these PDSDs get away with charging $5 or $10 for a copy of the software. I was at one Atari ST dealer in Michigan who had a copy of ST Xformer and the manual on his shelf for $49.95. And now with these ST Xformer Cables, there's guys out there making thousands of dollars selling them and the software, and I don't make one single penny from any of this. Am I pissed or what?? There is one mail order Atari dealer currently running an ad for the ST Xformer Cable and in the ad it states that even though the software and cable are PD, they will give me a share of the profits. Right in the ad! Well, considering that I have never been contacted by these people or received any money, and that they have been running this ad for months, I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that they have not sold one single cable. They are, just like the rest of the PDSDs, ripping me off. And of course, with Quick ST it was a similar situation. Most PDSDs simply couldn't handle updating their disks eveyr month with newer versions. Most of them also labeled the software as PUBLIC DOMAIN, which it was not. German PDSDs especially have done a lot of damage to me. Some of the German ST magazines I've seen carry ads from PDSDs who claim to have "exclusive distribution rights" of Quick ST in Germany. That's complete BS!! They sell the shareware versions for $20 or so, or spread them around as PD, and of course when I went commercial with Quick ST II, it took almost a year to convince someone to distribute Quick ST II commercially. Only now is Quick ST getting the serious attention from German magazines. In the US and Canada, I had a bit more control over Quick ST and managed to get the word out a lot faster about its conversion from shareware to a commercial product. However, there are still ads in magazine that I see from people selling Quick ST 0.8 (a beta version!!) or Quick ST 1.2 etc. These are 18 month old versions that have been superceded by at least half a dozen newer shareware or free demo releases. And that is why I am pushing the Quick ST 2.2 DEMO so heavily. Otherwise these idiot PDSDs will still be selling old versions. So, if I seem negative about PDSDs, I AM! And every other public domain, freeware, or shareware author out there SHOULD BE CAREFUL!!! And I didn't even get into what I think of these self-proclaimed "sysops" that run your local ST boards. Geez, I had one guy call me up a few days ago asking which versions of Quick ST he can put up on his BBS. He just could not get it through his head that when I said "none" that I meant NONE!! He didn't want to post the Quick ST 2.2 Demo, since it was a demo, and instead wanted to post Quick ST 1.4. (1.4 is MUCH MUCH slower than the 2.2 DEMO, so where this bozo's logic was, I don't know). The only PDSDs that I recommend are the online services like GEnie, Compuserve, Delphi, and BIX. The reason being that I, as an author and user of the service, have complete control over what files are posted and which are not. I will NEVER again get into writing shareware. I don't fell like putting money into other people's pockets. Since its conversion to commercial status, Quick ST has outsold its shareware counterpart by a factor of 20 to 1. Too bad I can't do anything about Xformer, because I'd love to keep hacking on that, but bills have to be paid. - Darek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darek Mihocka (206)-885-5893 All views expressed are my own. Branch Always Software, 14150 NE 20th St. Suite 302, Bellevue, WA 98007 Repeat after me: Quick ST is not PD. Quick ST is not PD. Quick ST is not PD. Quick View is not PD. Quick View is not PD. Quick View is not PD. Quick Index is not PD. Quick Index is not PD. Quick Index is not PD. Quick Find is not PD. Quick Find is not PD. Quick Find is not PD. Quick CLI is not PD. Quick CLI is not PD. Quick CLI is not PD. Quick Label is not PD. Quick Label is not PD. Quick Label is not PD. Quick Manager is not PD. Quick Manager is not PD. Quick Manager is not PD. Quick Inf is not PD. Quick Inf is not PD. Quick Inf is not PD. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------