evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (02/01/90)
In article <1186@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: >>"Pay if you use it" shareware and crippled demo software has no place on >>Usenet at all. >Hi Fridrik! YOne thing you should note: some of the best shareware available >is by members of the Association of Shareware Professionals. And some of the best publicly-distributed software around isn't charged for at all - so what? >In order to >qualify as a member, you must pass their rather stringent rules. One of >those rules is that you can;t ask for a donation, but rather must indicate >that the software, if used *must* be paid for. As Fridrik said, software supplied by anyone conforming to this ASP 'code', has no place on Usenet. But since there's no absolute legal need to do what the author says with unsolicited software, the matter is moot. Authors can demand whatever they want. If it doesn't affect the use of the program, I can choose to ignore it. If it affects the operation of the program, it's crippleware and deserves the bit bucket. The "professionalism" of a software author is mainly reflected in the quality of his/her product, and no ad-hoc organization will change that. I wouldn't give a damn if the author of a shareware package considers him/herself "professional" - if the package is worthwhile, I will reward that by following the author's wishes. Voluntarily. But why do we bother with this at all? Why plunge Usenet into paying for a resource which is already handled well by local BBS services? It's totally redundant with what PC-SIG, Canada Remote Systems, and thousands of BBSs are already doing. For someone to get a program from SIMTEL or a local BBS, they have to specifically ask for it. This puts the author making demands on somewhat firmer moral ground, than with the site owner who got the program but didn't ask for it. -- The Northwest Territories: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Where men are men, women | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario are scarce, and caribou are | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan very careful how they walk. | (416) 452-0504
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (02/01/90)
In article <1186@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >One of those rules is that you can't ask for a donation, but rather must > indicate that the software, if used *must* be paid for. > Don't misunderstand me - I'm not against "pay if you use it" shareware. I just don't like to see it distributed on Usenet. Well, maybe I would not object to a program like that every now and then... Perhaps the reason I don't quite agree with you is that you are making money on shareware programs, but I'm not.... :-) -frisk -- Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland frisk@rhi.hi.is Computing Services Guvf yvar vagragvbanyyl yrsg oynax .................
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/02/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > >For exactly that reason I am now off to remove comp.binaries from here. >Avoid the rush, I always say. The wonderful forces of "Bread and Circuses" >populism will undoubtably result in the shareware group being carried in >comp.binaries. John, why not wait until the dust settles, a new newsgroup called comp.binaries.shareware is created and *then* opt not to carry it or distribute it to your leaf nodes? -- 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"
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/02/90)
In article <1202@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: | John, why not wait until the dust settles, a new newsgroup called | comp.binaries.shareware is created and *then* opt not to carry it | or distribute it to your leaf nodes? It's nice that you assume this group will be created, but there are a few of us who feel it is a solution to a non-problem. Demos and crippleware shouldn't be on the net. Shareware serves a valid business purpose (at least my management thinks so) and does not have the volume for a hierarchy of its own (and putting all the shareware for all systems in one group is, to say it politely, impractical). -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/03/90)
In article <1202@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >John, why not wait until the dust settles, a new newsgroup called >comp.binaries.shareware is created and *then* opt not to carry it >or distribute it to your leaf nodes? Because political statements made post facto are ineffective. What most people hope for is no one to do anything. By taking off the binaries newsgroups I have quite clearly demonstrated that there will be administrators willing to remove those newsgroups when the group is created. I have no doubt the group =will= be created. I also have no doubt that most of the postings will be cross-posted to the .binaries group for the particular platform the machine is aimed at. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
salvis@iam.unibe.ch (Hans Salvisberg) (02/05/90)
>"Pay if you use it" shareware and crippled demo software has no place on >Usenet at all. I agree about crippled demo software (which really has nothing to do with shareware), but in my experience most of the best shareware programs are of the "pay if you use it" kind. The "donation is appreciated" kind is usually just utilities. Hans Salvisberg salvis@ahorn.iam.unibe.ch
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (02/06/90)
In article <1990Feb5.095605.25010@iam.unibe.ch>, salvis@iam.unibe.ch (Hans Salvisberg) writes: > I agree about crippled demo software (which really has nothing to do with > shareware), but in my experience most of the best shareware programs are > of the "pay if you use it" kind. The "donation is appreciated" kind is > usually just utilities. Hmmmm. You mean utilities like PKZIP for the IBM PC? From the shareware screen for PKZIP: >If you find PKZIP fast, easy, and convenient to use, a registration of >$25 would be appreciated. If you send $47 or more you will receive, >when available, the next version of the PKZIP, PKUNZIP, and PKSFX >programs. Please state the version of the software that you currently >have. Send check or money order to: ... Right. Just a dumb old utility. :-) Or Vernon Buerg's stuff, like LIST and ARCE. In the PC world there are a LOT of shareware programs that don't DEMAND payment. I suspect that you would be hard pressed to find a PC user on the net that doesn't have some sort of shareware archiver that is "donation is appreciated." At least PKZIP, PKPAK, and ARCE fall into this catagory. Are you suggesting that software like this shouldn't be distributed via usenet? Certainly a lot of people on the net have benefited by the distribution of programs like these. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/07/90)
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > It's nice that you assume this group will be created, but there are a >few of us who feel it is a solution to a non-problem. Demos and >crippleware shouldn't be on the net. Shareware serves a valid business >purpose (at least my management thinks so) and does not have the volume >for a hierarchy of its own (and putting all the shareware for all >systems in one group is, to say it politely, impractical). Shareware is, most specifically, not demoware or crippleware. It is fully functional software, distributed in an alternative manner. Whether or not Usenet should be included as part of this distributive distribution media is the question. I, biased as i am as a shareware author, think it has a place on Usenet, but in its own newsgroup. But, I do agree with you that, having all OS's and architectures in one single newsgroup will be impractical in the medium and long term. Perhaps to split it off later would be appropriate. -- 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"