pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) (01/25/90)
It's been brought to my attention that before calling for votes on the creation of a newsgroup I ought to allow a formal discussion to take place here. So, let's talk about it. I'l kick things off by saying that I've had several notes saying that biz.????ware is the right place for shareware. If I'd known about the biz.* heirarchy, I might agree. However, it doesn't reach Europe, which is why I hadn't heard of it and also why it would be a bad choice if the object of the the creation of a dedicated shareware group is to allow wide distribution of shareware by sites which have *consented* to do so. As for the votes, both pro- and contra- that I've received already. I can either junk them all until the formal voting period starts or hang on to them and let people who change their minds as a result of the discussion tell me and I'll change their votes here. I think the first option is probably more *correct*, but the second might be handier. Suggestions? Regards, Peter Kendell -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk> | | ...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/26/90)
In article <140@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: >If I'd known about the biz.* heirarchy, I might agree. However, it doesn't >reach Europe, which is why I hadn't heard of it and also why it would >be a bad choice if the object of the the creation of a dedicated >shareware group is to allow wide distribution of shareware by sites >which have *consented* to do so. This is the oldest chestnut going. Sure comp.* is distributed more thoroughly than biz.*. It's supposed to be, because we've agreed to keep it NONCOMMERCIAL. Trying to exploit this advantage to sneak in commercial activity would be an abuse. Europe's well connected sites choose to stick with the NONCOMMERCIAL core groups. Shareware enthusiasts have no right to frustrate this intention. If someone wants to start carrying commercial traffic across the Atlantic, let them set up a feed for the purpose. Only free software should be distributed in comp.*. Only pointers to, or announcements of, commercial software (including shareware) should appear in comp.*. There are groups like comp.newprod for the purpose.
tp@mccall.uucp (02/02/90)
In article <140@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>, pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes: > So, let's talk about it. I'l kick things off by saying that I've had > several notes saying that biz.????ware is the right place for shareware. > If I'd known about the biz.* heirarchy, I might agree. However, it doesn't > reach Europe, which is why I hadn't heard of it and also why it would > be a bad choice if the object of the the creation of a dedicated > shareware group is to allow wide distribution of shareware by sites > which have *consented* to do so. Um... If the biz.* hierarchy doesn't reach europe, it is because the sites running the US-Europe link have decided it shouldn't. Therefore they have chosen NOT to consent to the carrying of commercial-oriented information. Isn't this freedom of choice exactly what you are advocating? You could always ask the people running the link to carry this group, but they may not be willing to. In that case, you'd have to find some else willing to pay to bring shareware into europe. Perhaps if there are links from europe to other places (Japan, Australia, whatever), the people running them could be convinced. However, if you can't find someone willing to pay for it, then people will simply have exercised the option you are attempting to give them! -- Terry Poot (800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041 The McCall Pattern Company, 615 McCall Rd., Manhattan, KS 66502, USA UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!mccall!tp Internet: tp%mccall@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu