gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/18/85)
I will add my voice to Erik's for the banning of shareware funding
requests in netnews. USENET is for non-profit use only.
I suggest that in the future anyone who has any shareware to offer post
an article to net.sources.whatever announcing the availability of the
product, and giving yourself as the contact, with net address, phone #
or however else you want to be contacted. You are free to then
negotiate any forms of exchange privately with anyone who contacts you
-- this will keep any requests for funding outside the network.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@mit-eddie.mit.edutim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (10/20/85)
Although my first reaction to restrictions on shareware was negative, the
issue of using the net for personal gain has convinced me some restrictions
are needed. I suggest that we should set up net.sources.shareware and let
the decision be made on a site-by-site basis by individual system
administrators, since the issue is one on which we are likely to be almost
evenly split. Any posting of shareware to any other newsgroup would be a
breach of etiquette and would be dealt with like any other, that is, polite
notes to the offender pointing out the mistake, followed by eventual
contacting of the USENET administrator at the offender's site if offenses
persist and can be proven.
This will also negate the ARPNET issue, since net.sources.shareware will not
be gatewayed.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.craig@dcl-cs.UUCP (Craig Wylie) (10/21/85)
In article <132@mit-eddie.UUCP> gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) writes: >I will add my voice to Erik's for the banning of shareware funding >requests in netnews. USENET is for non-profit use only. > >I suggest that in the future anyone who has any shareware to offer post >an article to net.sources.whatever announcing the availability of the >product, and giving yourself as the contact, with net address, phone # A very difficult area, would this not amount to advertising ? Let's keep it completely clean and try to keep shareware out totally. "I have a bad feeling about this"
keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) (10/23/85)
In article <690@dcl-cs.UUCP> craig@dcl-cs.UUCP (Craig Wylie) writes: >>I will add my voice to Erik's for the banning of shareware funding >>requests in netnews. USENET is for non-profit use only. >>I suggest that in the future anyone who has any shareware to offer post >>an article to net.sources.whatever announcing the availability of the >>product, and giving yourself as the contact, with net address, phone # > >A very difficult area, would this not amount to advertising ? Let's keep >it completely clean and try to keep shareware out totally. > Can we let people announce that they have some software _to_give_away_ and then, if they *do* send out copies they can include a "Hey, I spent some time on this; if you like it, if you'd like to get updates, etc, etc, I sure would appreciate it if you'd send $xx to me at the following address..." That way it will be given freely, received and used, and if the recipient uses it *and wants to support the developer* he can, and not feel guilty if he doesn't. That's the condition the developer will have to accept to use the netnews/e-mail as an announcement and distribution channel. keith -- Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 uucp: [ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|(and_many_others)]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe CSnet: keithe@tek ARPAnet: keithe.tek@rand-relay
dws@tolerant.UUCP (Dave W. Smith) (10/25/85)
Here's a vote against the wholesale slaughter of shareware. Our site
gets quite a bit of utility out of some of it. Also, the point that
the poster isn't the original author (in 90% of the sample) is well
taken. I have no problem with a brief request for funds that appears
in the startup screen of a mac application, but would object to a message
posted to news asking for money. Maybe we can draw the line there?
--
David W. Smith {nsc,ucbvax}!tolerant!dws
Tolerant Systems, Inc.
408/946-5667 [Standard Disclaimer]benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas Cox) (10/30/85)
[]
Our story so far: 1) is .sources.mac useful to mac owners? yes.
2) is shareware worth using? sometimes, yes.
3) should the net carry shareware? not settled. yes & no.
4) arguments for carrying shareware?
A. useful programs/fonts/DA's for free
B. said useful things support the USENET community
5) arguments against?
A. primarily, that the authors of shareware 'stand to gain' [i. e. make
money] from the USENET's freely distributing said shareware.
B. possibly others. See net.micro.mac and net.news.
6) solution:
A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of
out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to
enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted.
B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware
payments.
--
Thomas Cox
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn
But of COURSE everything is unique.
If they weren't, they'd all be one thing.news@stc.UUCP (10/30/85)
Can someone please explain the FUNDAMENTAL difference between shareware and, say, chain letters? Seems to me that they both clog communication channels for a few people's financial benefit.
gus@Shasta.ARPA (11/01/85)
> > A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of > out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to > enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted. > B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware > payments. While I might see that benefits of moderating Net.Sources.Mac, I believe that most of the "chatter" that would be eliminated accounts for a small fraction of the total volume. Those utilities that are re-posted, such as PackIt worm a core of utilities required for up/downloading, and SHOULD be periodically re-posted every few months for the benefit of newcomers. There is a LOT of good software being posted on the net and nothing should be done to discourage downloading it. Anyone who objects to having shareware on the net should also remove all brand names from everything that they own, as this counts for "advertising" just as much as any other form in that the creator stands to gain byt having other (non-owners) note the presence of the product in the world. Many other nets (such as CompuServe) have no stipulations regarding Shareware. TThis would limit cross-postings to Net.Sources.Mac and thus limit the range of choices available to the Mac users on Usenet. I am not making a statement regarding shareware. I am simply trying to avoid a situation by which an author might be tempted not to post his program because he could not ask others for a voluntary donation for his efforts. It is up to the users to decide whether to pay or not.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/01/85)
In article <678@stc-b.stc.UUCP> news@stc.UUCP (Network news system) writes: > Can someone please explain the FUNDAMENTAL difference between > shareware and, say, chain letters? > Seems to me that they both clog communication channels for a > few people's financial benefit. The fundamental difference is that shareware software can be of use to you even if you choose not to participate. That is, you have the code and can use it, copy and extract from it, etc., as you see fit. You only need to send the author money if a) you feel some moral compunction to do so; and/or b) you want to get the benefits that sending the money gets you (updates, printed manuals, whatever). As for chain letters, IF they work [a highly dubious prospect in many cases], you HAVE to participate to get a reward -- you have to send somebody else money and pay to copy the letter (I'm using the paper ones I get in the mail every now and then as examples -- I've never seen how they can work electronically!). Most of the ones I get try to avoid the "chain letter" illegality by being a front for selling silly little papers on how to make lots of money in mailorder, so, to participate, you have to pay a printer to run off a hundred or thousand copies of the brochure, and pay postage to send them out, etc. To me, it seems that if you get a few minute's enjoyment from a shareware game, or some useful computer software from any other form of shareware, you are ahead of the game. NOTHING makes you put any money into the pot, and you STILL get some good out of it. Let's be honest about this -- the only "problem" is that some net hosts (mainly the fabled "backbone" sites) are putting out more resources than they are getting back in return (from finding stuff worthwhile on the net). If every site had people in authority that wanted microcomputer software for themselves (personally), this issue would have never arisen. The whole "non-commercial" business isn't really important. Will
dws@tolerant.UUCP (Dave W. Smith) (11/01/85)
In article <1256@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP, (Thomas Cox) writes: > 6) solution: ... >B. state a USENET policy that the net *Strongly Discourages* shareware > payments. > Thomas Cox >...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!benn The issue is not "is shareware a bad thing". The issue is, as I see it, the use of USENET as a profit making vehicle. The secondary issue is bandwidth. Consider a book. If the author where to use USENET to hawk his work, this would be a clear violation. After all, he stands to profit. Now, if I were to post a message recommending the book, would that be o.k.? After all, you (or someone) would still have to buy the book, and the author would profit. Right? There's still money involved, so should we issue a proclamation discouraging people from recommending or buying books? I think not. Now consider shareware. (Let's ignore for a moment the 10% that gets posted by the authors themselves -- this can be dealt with within existing policy.) The differences between someone posting a piece of shareware that they've found useful and someone posting a book recommen- dation are 1) bandwidth, and 2) you get to try the shareware out before deciding if you want to keep it (or pay for it). The difference, as it should concern USENET, is 1) bandwidth, and the fact that somebody (read everybody) has to pay for it. An effective way to deal with bandwidth is to add some filtering. A moderated group for mac postings should deal with this nicely. -- David W. Smith {nsc,ucbvax}!tolerant!dws Tolerant Systems, Inc. 408/946-5667 [Standard Disclaimer]
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (11/02/85)
> Can someone please explain the FUNDAMENTAL difference between > shareware and, say, chain letters? > > Seems to me that they both clog communication channels for a > few people's financial benefit. A chain letter has no intrinsic value. Shareware must be intrinsically useful, or else no one would send money to the author. Also, don't the commercial broadcast media clog communications channels for a few people's financial benefit? -- Larry Campbell decvax!genrad The Boston Software Works, Inc. \ 120 Fulton St. seismo!harvard!wjh12!maynard!campbell Boston MA 02109 / / ihnp4 cbosgd ARPA: maynard.UUCP:campbell@harvard.ARPA
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/03/85)
> Can someone please explain the FUNDAMENTAL difference between > shareware and, say, chain letters? Shareware provides a service that you would otherwise have to pay for, sight unseen. Maybe you have enough money to buy 42 terminal programs, or maybe your likes & dislikes match up with Jerry Pournelle's so you can let him do the testing, but some of us can't afford the former & don't believe the latter. > Seems to me that they both clog communication channels for a > few people's financial benefit. I have yet to meet anyone who has made a living off shareware. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover) (11/03/85)
I don't want to hear any more about shareware! Shareware happens to be useful. (er... as long as you have a net.sources.mac that is). The thing to say AGAINST net.sources.mac is the repeated postings of the exact same things. Now that is a HUGE WASTE! And the one quote I saw I thought was especially obnoxious. (Something like "This is the last time I'm going to post this thing, so send your money now!") Please. The only reasonable thing to do about net.sources.mac is to come up with a method for reducing duplicate postings. -- David Herron, cbosgd!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET. English is a second language to me -- Baby talk was my first language.
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (11/04/85)
> Can someone please explain the FUNDAMENTAL difference between > shareware and, say, chain letters? Easy. Chain letters provide no medium or long term benefit to the readers. Shareware - particularly in net.micro.mac - often does. Jon Shapiro -- Jonathan S. Shapiro Haverford College "It doesn't compile pseudo code... What do you expect for fifty dollars?" - M. Tiemann
matt@srs.UUCP (Matt Goheen) (11/04/85)
Well, well, well. Isn't net.news (& net.news.group) crowded these days. It seems obvious (to me) that net.sources.mac isn't going to go away. It may change it's name (to mod.s.m), but that's about it. I don't see why there is such a fuss over a news group that is so useful to the Mac community. Oh, you say this is for Unix users? Well, why do we have net.politics, net.philosophy, net.etc.etc.etc...? What good do these groups serve. But, I don't really care about those groups (because I don't read them :-) ). However, I DO read, grok, archive, save, browse through, study n.s.m. Of ALL the shareware that has been posted over the last six months, only one is actually going to get money from me (hasn't yet, but will). The rest I find mostly useless and/or poorly written and/or a re-hash of something I already have. What's the POINT of this babble you say? Well: 1) Shareware doesn't REQUIRE payment, even if you do use it. By putting something in the public domain you have no LEGAL claim to ANY money (hell, if it did I would certainly distribute some crap to get rich on; or maybe put up signs demanding money for reading my sign!). 2) Why are we even discussing this when so many other groups contain so much garbage. Maybe we could discuss making n.s.m a moderated group. I would moderate if it came to this, but I really don't feel it's that necessary. Currently on our machine (where we expire news in one week), n.s.m takes a whopping 105K. Compare to net.politics at 435 (inc. net.politics.theory) and net.religion.all at 344K. Net.flame has 346K!!! In other words, although n.s.m has a rather high band width (and, do to the nature of its material it fluctuates rather highly), it generally is lower than many other groups. 3) There is no number three. However, if anyone thinks there is and I've forgotten it, please let me know. 4) Most shareware is not posted by the author. I.E. someone uses a shareware program, thinks it is good and posts it. I mean, it is SHAREware. 5) Shareware can be useful. Shareware can be fun. Shareware can be used as a contraceptive device (well, this one isn't actually true, but the first two are). The ONLY negative point I see in shareware is that the authors are getting something for nothing -> free distribution. However, BIG DEAL. No one is LOSING money because of it. It seems to me that the people that want n.s.m to go away are growing sour grapes...they don't make money from shareware, therefore no one should. It is the benefit I look at, not who is getting what for what. Anyway, the amount of money made in shareware over NETNEWS is slim. That's it. I really don't see why we keep discussing this (except from the "to mod or not to mod" angle) as it is obvious n.s.m is here to stay in one form or another. Geez, some people... Matt Goheen S.R. Systems ...seismo!rochester!srs!matt
svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (11/04/85)
In article <1256@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Thomas Cox) writes: >[] > 4) arguments for carrying shareware? > >A. useful programs/fonts/DA's for free >B. said useful things support the USENET community C. its been my experience that shareware is performs better (ie. less bugs, nicer user interface, more polished) and has better documentation than most public domain software. This makes sense. Who's going to send money to someone for a lousy program. On the other hand, there is little incentive for the authors of PD software to maintain and/or enhance their programs. I mean, after all, maintanence is a dirty job so nobody wants to do it, right (-|? I realize that many PD authors take great pride in doing a good job, but there are some that figure that once its up and running, their job is done. Debugging is often very frustrating and boring. > > 5) arguments against? > >A. primarily, that the authors of shareware 'stand to gain' [i. e. make > money] from the USENET's freely distributing said shareware. >B. possibly others. See net.micro.mac and net.news. > > 6) solution: > >A. mod.sources.mac would eliminate chatter, repostings, postings of > out-of-date software. Latest posting = latest version. would serve to > enforce whatever shareware policy was adopted. As long as the policy that is adopted is what the majority wants and is not the decision of just a few persons.
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/06/85)
> The thing to say AGAINST net.sources.mac is the repeated postings of > the exact same things. Now that is a HUGE WASTE! And the one quote > I saw I thought was especially obnoxious. (Something like "This is > the last time I'm going to post this thing, so send your money now!") > Sounds like another argument for the mod.sources.* transition.
rec@mplvax.UUCP (Richard Currier) (11/07/85)
In article <2713@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > >Let's be honest about this -- the only "problem" is that some net hosts >(mainly the fabled "backbone" sites) are putting out more resources than >they are getting back in return (from finding stuff worthwhile on the >net). If every site had people in authority that wanted microcomputer >software for themselves (personally), this issue would have never >arisen. The whole "non-commercial" business isn't really important. > >Will This is already happening Will and faster than I think anyone could have predicted. The number of professional people using microcomputers in the Unix workplace is increasing at a fantastic rate. They are becoming an important part of the "Unix Environment" and the information flow necessary for their effective use is growing in proportion to their increasing use. The system administrators that are objecting to the volume of microcomputer traffic have a legitimate beef at the moment because they have not yet encountered enough pressure from their user base to keep the channels open. This is going to change in the near future and rapidly. What are now considered "non-essential" groups are going to become priority groups when it becomes apparent that the whole nature of the Unix community is evolving rapidly in that direction. System Administrators work for management. The thrust of management is to get the job done. When management sees the value of a tool in increasing productivity anyone who opposes that tool had better have a good resume ready. It would be unfortunate if a small group of sites cut themselves off from what is an extremely exciting and important part of the evolving Unix environment. If they wake up too late they may find management at their door asking why they are out of the mainstream and how it happened. growing pressure from users at their site -- richard currier marine physical lab u.c. san diego {ihnp4|decvax|akgua|dcdwest|ucbvax} !sdcsvax!mplvax!rec
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (11/09/85)
Another difference between chain letters and shareware is that chain letters
threaten dire negative consequences to the recipient if the recipient does
forward the letter with significant fan out. Chain letters, at least if
they use the Post Office, are in violation of Federal law. I suspect this
is also true if they are sent electronicly interstate.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee