pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) (01/24/90)
As a result of this year's shareware war on comp.sources.d, for
which I must take some responsibility, it has become clear to me
that in order to satisfy the competing claims of shareware
authors, potential shareware buyers and USENET sites we should
create a new newsgroup, provisionally named comp.shareware, to
carry shareware postings.
Why do we need comp.shareware?
The shareware concept allows the writers of software to distribute
their products to a large number of potential users on a 'try it -
if you like it buy it' basis. This saves the writer a fortune in
advertising and distribution costs, allowing him or her to sell
the product at a much lower price. Unfortunately, a large part of
this saving is made at the expense of the USENET community in
general, who have to bear the cost of transporting and storing the
software. Nevertheless, the facility is valuable and probably
gives a net benefit to the USENET community.
The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf
nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not.
Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source
and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed.
I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site
should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The
only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware
newsgroup (or groups). I therefore propose the creation of
comp.shareware. Authors of shareware should post only to this
group, with a notice in comp.newprod drawing it to the attention
of subscribers who do not or cannot read comp.shareware. Note
that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups
is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware!
Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say
what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject
contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against
the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3
weeks hence, February 13th 1990.
I am anxious to comply with the latest net protocol with regard
to this vote. If I have made technical errors please let me know
and I'll take whatever action is necessary.
Regards,
Peter Kendell
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk> |
| ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) (01/25/90)
1) first, you should call for a discussion of the topic 2) second, the call for discussion (and later for a vote) should be posted in the moderated group news.announce.newgroups 3) third, no generic shareware group is acceptable that is not also subdivided by computer type (ibmpc, mac, amiga, etc) why go back to the stone-ages? 4) most shareware is not posted by the authors; to assume, therefore, that software posted in all "other groups" can be considered FreeWare, is plainly absurd and has no legal base. 5) I'm not against humouring a few leave-nodes who don't want to be burdened by carrying shareware, but I wonder if this is really a problem that would not be better solved by having those sites not import any sources, period, but get them on disk from the Boston Computer Society or the local club. Maybe what is needed is a moderator for all sources-groups (if they do not exist already) and a priority scheme that would put shareware and demos at the end of the queue, possibly never to get posted if the traffic in Free- ware is heavy enough. But, quite honestly, a lot of FreeWare is not worth the bandwidth, but a lot of ShareWare is!!
lar@pc.usl.edu (Robert Lane A.) (01/25/90)
In article <139@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:
The problem arises that sites, whether trunk, branch or leaf
nodes, have no choice as to whether they carry shareware or not.
Remember, USENET is a non-commercial network. The existing source
and binary groups carry shareware and PD software intermixed.
If the problem is that shareware is too commercial, shouldn't the new
group be placed under biz? How about biz.software? Does something
already exist on biz that could be used for this purpose? Otherwise,
I would suggest that the logical place would be under comp.sources or
comp.binaries.
I believe that *choice* is the important part of this. A site
should be free to choose whether to carry shareware or not. The
only way to achieve this is to create a dedicated shareware
newsgroup (or groups).
Does anyone have any idea how much potential shareware traffic exists?
Would a new newsgroup be justified?
Note that a corollary of this is that software posted to other groups
is to be regarded as freeware - shareware writers should beware!
You mean if someone posts a piece of software that I happen to have
acquired from some other source and paid the shareware fee for, I'm
entitled to a refund of the fee? I would think not. It should be up
to the moderators, if anyone, to keep shareware out of the other
groups. If a group is not moderated, then forget it. In that case no
amount of net.legislation will entirely stop shareware posts.
Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk.
WHOA! We need some time to exercise our flame thr--er--discuss this
before a vote. Take a look at the newsgroup creation guidelines.
Just my $0.02. Followups to news.groups.
Lane lar@usl.edu ...!texbell!rouge!largreenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/26/90)
pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > [some stuff regarding shareware that is obviously his opinion. But he proposes the creation of a new group for shareware. I would think this might be worthy of a discussion before voting immediately as Peter suggests. Further, I would suggest the creation of two new newsgroups. comp.shareware.d - for discussion about shareware comp.shareware.progs - (or some similiarily named newsgroup) for the actual distribution of shareware programs > >Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say >what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject >contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against >the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3 >weeks hence, February 13th 1990. > -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) (02/03/90)
In article <1181@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > > pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: >> > [some stuff regarding shareware that is obviously his opinion. But > he proposes the creation of a new group for shareware. I would think > this might be worthy of a discussion before voting immediately as > Peter suggests. > > Further, I would suggest the creation of two new newsgroups. > comp.shareware.d - for discussion about shareware > comp.shareware.progs - (or some similiarily named newsgroup) for the > actual distribution of shareware programs >> >>Please send your votes to me, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk. You can say >>what you like in the body of the message so long as the subject >>contains the word SHAREWARE and a yes or no vote for or against >>the creation of the group. The closing date for the vote is 3 >>weeks hence, February 13th 1990. >> SHAREWARE is as has been said before COMMERCIAL. Have we forgotten who and what we are? This ????net exists for the FREE flow of information between like-minded individuals. This is not an arena for you to make a dollar (yen, pound, franc, etc.) Make you announcements in comp.*, comp.newprod, etc. if anyone's interested they will call you, or not as they see fit. Thank you K-MART shoppers for participating in tonight's blue light special. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -William A. Sneed uucp: ...!pyrdc!robecdc!ghost -Robec Dist. voice: (703) 631-4800 -Manassas, Va fax: (703) 631-4806 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brain fried -- Core dumped ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The words you have just read are strictly my own and no one else's. They in no way should be construed as anything but my own personal opinion. Besides no one else would lay claim to them. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------