mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) (08/20/88)
I just downloaded StuffIt 1.5 and read the user's guide. I notice that it
now says that StuffIt is shareware, period. (UnStuffIt 1.5 is still freeware).
The user's guide for 1.40B says that if you only use it for UNstuffing,
StuffIt 1.40B is freeware. I personally only use StuffIt for unstuffing and
unBinHexing, and I'd rather not have to use UnStuffIt AND BinHex 4.0 (because
UnStuffIt doesn't do unBinHexing).
So, my question is, is it really intended that StuffIt 1.5 is shareware, even
if I use it only for unstuffing and unBinHexing? If so, I won't use StuffIt
1.5.
Mike Khaw
--
internet: mkhaw@teknowledge.arpa
uucp: {uunet|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|uw-beaver}!mkhaw%teknowledge.arpa
hardcopy: Teknowledge Inc, 1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119, Palo Alto, CA 94303leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (08/24/88)
mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA(Mike Khaw) writes in comp.sys.mac >I just downloaded StuffIt 1.5 and read the user's guide. I notice that it >now says that StuffIt is shareware, period. (UnStuffIt 1.5 is still freeware). >The user's guide for 1.40B says that if you only use it for UNstuffing, >StuffIt 1.40B is freeware. I personally only use StuffIt for unstuffing and >unBinHexing, and I'd rather not have to use UnStuffIt AND BinHex 4.0 (because >UnStuffIt doesn't do unBinHexing). > >So, my question is, is it really intended that StuffIt 1.5 is shareware, even >if I use it only for unstuffing and unBinHexing? If so, I won't use StuffIt >1.5. > I don't know offhand what the shareware status of Stuffit 1.5 is vs. it's previous incarnations. But I can tell you that you will have problems when files start being posted that were stuffed with 1.5. The file format has changed from 1.4 to 1.5 and if you are not using 1.5, forget reading the new files! I personally think the changes are WONDERFUL, especially the new HMF - Heirarchically Maintained Folders! (Disclaimer: My name appears in the Stuffit About box as I helped Ray out!) +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ + + Any thing I say may be taken as + + Leonard Rosenthol + fact, then again you might decide+ + President, LazerWare, inc. + that it really isn't, so you + + + never know, do you?? + + leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu + + + GEnie: MACgician + MacNET: MACgician + + Delphi: MACgician + + + + + +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
rcb@rti.UUCP (Random) (08/24/88)
In article <46100206@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> leonardr@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > I don't know offhand what the shareware status of Stuffit 1.5 is vs. it's >previous incarnations. But I can tell you that you will have problems when >files start being posted that were stuffed with 1.5. The file format has >changed from 1.4 to 1.5 and if you are not using 1.5, forget reading the new >files! I personally think the changes are WONDERFUL, especially the new >HMF - Heirarchically Maintained Folders! > I looked at 1.5 and I like the idea of maintaining the heirarchy, but is it possible to maintain the heirarchy but still be able to extract a single file that was in a folder? -- Randy Buckland (919)-541-7103 Research Triangle Institute rcb@rti.rti.org [128.109.139.2] {decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!rti!rcb
ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) (08/30/88)
In article <24519@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) writes: > I just downloaded StuffIt 1.5 and read the user's guide. I notice that it > now says that StuffIt is shareware, period. (UnStuffIt 1.5 is still freeware). > The user's guide for 1.40B says that if you only use it for UNstuffing, > StuffIt 1.40B is freeware. I personally only use StuffIt for unstuffing and > unBinHexing, and I'd rather not have to use UnStuffIt AND BinHex 4.0 (because > UnStuffIt doesn't do unBinHexing). > So, my question is, is it really intended that StuffIt 1.5 is shareware, even > if I use it only for unstuffing and unBinHexing? If so, I won't use StuffIt > 1.5. > >Mike Khaw This to me is the classic case of being a cheapskate, Stuffit and its associated utilities are well worth very low shareware fee. The $20 That Ray Lau asks is nothing in comparison to the usefulness of Stuffit, the accompanying DA's and his SF VOL init. Just because you decide that you only use it for "unstuffing" and unbinhexing, does not make it so that you should not pay the fee. If something is good and well worth the $$, and you find yourself using it, pay for it. THe original intentions of Stuffit were fine, but now that you cannot login anywhere without locating files that are stuffed with Stuffit, a lot of sysops have even converted a large number of files from Packit format to Stuffit, because Stuffit does a better job of compression. So I think that Ray is well justified in having a shareware fee for his products. The other problem that you face is that 1.5 will allow you to stuff folders, which may not let 1.4 unstuff files that are packed as folders, so you will need 1.5 anyway most likely...I would stop procrastinating, and just pay the $20, anyone with a mac should be able to afford that and the .25 cent stamp....
mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) (08/30/88)
In article <53@bridge2.UUCP>, ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) says: > This to me is the classic case of being a cheapskate, Stuffit and its Gee Norm, since you've been so forward as to brand me a cheapskate in public, I guess I have to reveal my real reasons for wanting to avoid StuffIt if it's strictly shareware. If I were using StuffIt for my personal benefit, I have no problems paying the very reasonable sum of $20 for such a great utility, but in all good conscience I can't install a shareware utility on the machines at work, not knowing how many people are going to make use of it (I would think each regular user of a shareware utility should feel obliged to ante up the money, even if they all run it on the same machine, no?). The whole shareware concept needs clearer definition, what with networks and file servers and whatnot. So, Norm, what's your advice now? Does my company need to pay N * $20 for N of our Macs to run StuffIt 1.5? M * $20, where M is the anticipated number of regular users? Mike Khaw -- internet: mkhaw@teknowledge.arpa uucp: {uunet|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|uw-beaver}!mkhaw%teknowledge.arpa hardcopy: Teknowledge Inc, 1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119, Palo Alto, CA 94303
drc@claris.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (08/30/88)
What I would suggest your site do is contact Ray Lau. I believe that I have seen references to site-licensing in old messages. Dennis Cohen Claris Corp. ------------ Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
lulue@manta.NOSC.MIL (Dan Lulue ) (08/30/88)
In article <24684@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) writes: > If I were using StuffIt for my personal benefit, I have no problems paying > the very reasonable sum of $20 for such a great utility, but in all good > conscience I can't install a shareware utility on the machines at work, > not knowing how many people are going to make use of it (I would think each > regular user of a shareware utility should feel obliged to ante up > the money, even if they all run it on the same machine, no?). > > The whole shareware concept needs clearer definition, what with networks > and file servers and whatnot. I agree. The situation is even more difficult if you work for the government. It is apparently very difficult, or even impossible to arrange payment to an individual. I would like to include some useful shareware utilities on the starter diskettes we hand out to our users, but there is no way to compensate the authors every time we hand one out. Dan.
jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) (08/31/88)
In article <394@manta.NOSC.MIL>, lulue@manta.NOSC.MIL (Dan Lulue ) writes: > .... I would like to include some useful > shareware utilities on the starter diskettes we hand out to our users, > but there is no way to compensate the authors every time we hand one > out. There's no need to be worried about compensating the authors. As I see it, passing out the disks is like having the program available for download on a bulletin board system. The responsibility of adhering to the shareware ethic is up to the end user. Shareware wouldn't have gotten as far as it has (however far that may be) if the distributors (sysops, CompuServe, etc.) were responsible for making sure the "pay or erase it" clause was followed. Simply put, they would refuse to distribute it. You may want to make it doubly obvious by separating the shareware form the freeware, and maybe even a "read.me"-type text file stating in some general form the shareware credo. I've seen this done before and it's not really all that obnoxious. In fact, it adds a bit of credibility to the authors' request by showing the user that the request isn't simple begging or a flat-out joke. > > Dan. --chris Disclaimer: I don't write shareware code (yet?), but I've been supporting shareware for over 7 years. -- J. Chris Cooley | husc6! -\ Computation. Center (COM 1) | im4u! -->-cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!jcc Univ. of Texas at Austin | uunet! -/ Austin, TX 78712 |
ngg@bridge2.3Com.Com (Norman Goodger) (09/02/88)
In article <24684@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw) writes: > StuffIt if it's strictly shareware. > > If I were using StuffIt for my personal benefit, I have no problems paying > the very reasonable sum of $20 for such a great utility, but in all good > conscience I can't install a shareware utility on the machines at work, > not knowing how many people are going to make use of it (I would think each > regular user of a shareware utility should feel obliged to ante up > the money, even if they all run it on the same machine, no?). > The whole shareware concept needs clearer definition, what with networks > and file servers and whatnot. > So, Norm, what's your advice now? Does my company need to pay N * $20 > for N of our Macs to run StuffIt 1.5? M * $20, where M is the anticipated > number of regular users? > Mike Khaw Well Mike, thats a tough question, from your intial posting it just appeared that you wanted to continue to use Stuffit for your personal use, under' the original guidelines of previous versions. That has changed. I guess without digging into the problems of networks and such, it appears that you have a valid use for stuffit, so I see no reason why you cannot or should not pay the shareware fee. If it were extremely expensive, I can see procrastination on many users parts, but its not, its only $20. I am sure if you dropped a note to Ray Lau, you could even perhaps work out site license if you felt the real need to go that far. But if you have a use for it, and you continue to need it for unbinhexing, and perhaps unstuffing the files that come across the net, then I think you should consider paying the shareware fee. Ray's initial rules have changed. And Like I mentioned its possible that future archives will contains folders that may not work with older versions. Even if the net sets up rules about that, it only takes one file to get thru that will mess up anyone hanging on to an older copy of Stuffit. The other thing I've never understood is the seeming total dependency on the net for some of these files, there are an abundance of BBS's out there that contain all or most of these files, and you can get them all much faster, and with a lot less work then piecing all the parts together and then to discover that you are either missing a piece, or its corrupted but I guess this is a whole subject in itself. Bottom line Mike, sorry if I came across rudely, but shareware is something that is on the way out or on the skids, and this is one application that I feel is worth the minimal fee, just for your personal use, not withstanding the environment and other people there. I also don't think you can decide what is good for the others there either, paying the fee is up to each user I think..... Norm Goodger 3Com Corp. Sysop - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862