pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) (01/05/90)
Am I alone in thinking that the distribution over USENET of this self-proclaimed commercial package is a bit of a cheek? I'm not for a moment going to dispute the usefulness of the package or the work that Brad and Co have put into it. But let's not forget - USENET costs money. For many people, that money is part of someone else's budget and they don't have to worry about it. For others, like myself, that money comes out of their own pockets in phone bills. The shar files for newsclip total around 750K - a non-trivial amount, representing around 1 hour of phone time at 1200 baud with a commpressed news feed (are *you* going to buy me a faster modem?). It's bad enough when firms send you unsolicited material through the post - at least *they* pay for the delivery of it. Would anyone like to guess the *global* cost of this distribution? British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post. So, Looking Glass Software. The unsolicited copy of Newsclip that you sent to me now awaits collection at your expense at some mutually agreed time. If you do not collect the goods within 6 months then title and ownership of them will revert to me. A storage charge may be payable. Peter Kendell P.S. Why not distribute the software under the GNU licence and make your money by selling really well produced printed manuals for it? P.P.S. Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their* software? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk> | | ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (01/05/90)
In article <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:
: P.P.S. Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their*
: software?
Primarily because I'm out to set a standard, not to make a buck. Those
who try to make bucks very frequently find that they neither make bucks
nor set standards. A commercial product has increase the standard of
living by a certain percentage to be viable, and I seem to specialize
in doing things that improve the standard of living just a little less
than that magical percentage. In other words, I tend to write things
that people wouldn't pay much for because they already have other ways
to do it.
But if it's free, and noticeably better, most everyone wants it, and nobody
has an excuse for staying in the dark ages.
If ksh had been free, I suspect that very few of us would be using csh
any more. If patch had been a commercial offering, you wouldn't find
it on many machines yet.
You CAN set standards while making bucks, but it's a much tougher row to how.
Well, I should revise that. It's easy to set standards. What's hard is
to set a single standard. Look at Unix. :-)
On the other hand, making bucks has something to be said for it...
Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.govaem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (01/06/90)
In article <6734@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >Primarily because I'm out to set a standard, not to make a buck. Those >who try to make bucks very frequently find that they neither make bucks >nor set standards. A commercial product has increase the standard of >living by a certain percentage to be viable, and I seem to specialize >in doing things that improve the standard of living just a little less >than that magical percentage. In other words, I tend to write things >that people wouldn't pay much for because they already have other ways >to do it. >But if it's free, and noticeably better, most everyone wants it, and nobody >has an excuse for staying in the dark ages. >If ksh had been free, I suspect that very few of us would be using csh >any more. If patch had been a commercial offering, you wouldn't find >it on many machines yet. Larry, I'd like to publically thank you for all the work you've done in making these fine tools available to the USENET community. I don't like to think what my job would be like without your tools. I think that I use most of your packages here, and (with the exception of rn) use them on a daily basis. Thanks. aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion Ne me regardez plus comme ca, parce que vous allez vous user les yeux. - Emile Zola
erc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) (01/06/90)
In article <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > >But let's not forget - USENET costs money. For many people, that money >is part of someone else's budget and they don't have to worry about it. [ ... ] >Would anyone like to guess the *global* cost of this distribution? I wouldn't think much. It's my understanding that most of this stuff goes over (1) the Internet or (2) local uucp connections. So what's the problem? > >British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post. [ ... ] >ownership of them will revert to me. A storage charge may be payable. Interesting idea. I've never thought of it that way, although there are similar laws in the United States. -- Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) uunet!cs.utexas.edu!khijol!erc Austin, Texas (512) 832-5884 "Good tea. Nice house." - Worf *** Did you know that Barbie Benton PLAYS THE PIANO?? Quite well, too! ***
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (01/06/90)
In article <6734@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >Primarily because I'm out to set a standard, not to make a buck. Those >who try to make bucks very frequently find that they neither make bucks >nor set standards. A commercial product has increase the standard of >living by a certain percentage to be viable, and I seem to specialize >in doing things that improve the standard of living just a little less >than that magical percentage. In other words, I tend to write things >that people wouldn't pay much for because they already have other ways >to do it. It is very difficult to thank the truly humble people on this planet because they will gladly point out how insignificant or worthless their work is. Thank you very much for rn, perl, and patch. I use all three of them on a regular basis and don't have any real alternatives. Drawing comparisions of these three programs against their competitors does little justice to the work which goes into creating a net.classic. Thanks. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/07/90)
In the referenced message, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) wrote:
}British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post.
Of course. I've never seen any shareware that claims you have a legal
obligation to pay; the claimed obligation is moral. And since I, like
you, do not agree with this obligation, I would gleefully use newsclip
and not pay if I felt the slightest need for it.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
"So young, so bad, so what."danj1@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Dan Jacobson) (01/14/90)
Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >you, do not agree with this obligation, I would gleefully use newsclip >and not pay if I felt the slightest need for it. Naa... it still wouldn't have the free flux of ideas author <--> users... and your friends later might only be able to get your stale copy, instead of fresh ones from the net, as with the free stuff. Better not waste any energy on the sticky stuff it and let them take their marbles and go home. -- Dan Jacobson +1-708-979-6364 danj1@ihlpa.ATT.COM