dyer@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jon Brode) (04/04/90)
>koreth@panarthea.EBay.Sun.COM (Steven Grimm) writes: >many network usage rules cause that to mean "no commercial >software." If I were to strictly interpret the rules, shareware would >be disallowed, too. My main objective, as I said earlier, is to keep >all this stuff away from the attention of those who would raise a fuss >about it, and thereby endanger the net as a whole. Wow, sounds like some pretty dire consequences. At any rate, we have no such problems at terminator. We're always happy to accept commercial demos. Send them our way. N.B.: We accept demos, not the released product. Someone uploaded TOS 1.4 to terminator last month. Needless to say, there were some at Atari who were not pleased. Luckily, they were cool about it. Other companies might demand that we shut down the archive. Once again, PLEASE DO NOT UPLOAD COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE TO TERMINATOR. BTW, a lot of changes have been going on behind the scenes at terminator. I'll post another article to fill ya'll in, soon. Jon Brode -- dyer@math.lsa.umich.edu Terminator Atari Spokesperson
leo@ehviea.ine.philips.nl (Leo de Wit) (04/07/90)
In article <1515@lzsc.ATT.COM> hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) writes: |In article <35429@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM>, koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) writes: |> There have been many comments here recently about my policy on demos on |> comp.binaries.atari.st. I'd like to take this opportunity to explain my |> position, so everyone will at least know where I'm coming from. |> |Perhaps the question here is the line between Moderation and Censoring. | |I had thought that Moderated Binaries served to supply: |1. flow control -- send only so much per day. |2. eliminate duplication. | |Now Censoring as been added. But is it a valid function of the Moderator? | |P.S. |I never distribute thru atari.binaries for just this reason. I don't |need a self appointed Censor picking through code looking for |an Offensive line. Howard, it might not have occurred to you, but I think atari.binaries was not created for the sake of software developers, but for the sake of the users of that software. 1) It gives me a safe feeling to know that someone else (someone I can trust) has taken a look at the code, or the program (whatever applies), before I'm going to use it. Though certainly not foolproof, it makes life harder for 'virus spreaders'. 2) Having a moderator guarantees there is a uniform interface for those wanting to download stuff: the hardware it runs on is mentioned, or the compiler that will compile it (whatever applies). Also the de-/encoding methods will be better standardized. 3) Even developers should benefit from a moderator, given the free gamma- test and possible suggestions for improvement before releasing it to the public. Remember, the net is not for free; having a moderator may well save some traffic. 4) Having a moderator guarantees that certain rules are being obeyed. For instance, source code should be documented. Yes, that makes life harder for developers (at first). And yes, it makes life easier for those wanting to use it. The rule that Usenet should not be used for commercial purposes, should be obeyed by everyone using it; that is, it should go without saying. That is, if you're not obeying it, your system administrator (or a backbone S.A.) is entitled to cancel your article (the general consensus however seems to be not to cancel but transmit, resulting in some hot flames for the offender; this usually helps). I have no problem whatsoever with refusing commercials. My $0.04 - Leo.