pinkas@hobbit.intel.com (Israel Pinkas ~) (04/01/89)
> It seems to me that usenet is rarely NECESSARY to any company and for that > matter to many schools and other such places which carry it. I'm sure there > are exceptions, and I may be a little over critical in saying this. However > I'm sure we all agree that we all are glad that our sites are part of this > network. With this in mind, it seems that probably the majority of sites > carry usenet mostly as a bonus to their users. Please no flames -- I'm sure > there are many wide and varried benefits from usenet access. > > The point I'm trying to make is that the question we should be asking is > whether we benefit from shareware posted to the net. While I certainly > perfer free software, I sometimes find shareware that IS worth its price to > me. Certainly shareware by far undersells most commercial software. I > enjoy this easy access to shareware. I seriously doubt that the amount of > software available on usenet will substantially increase if shareware is > banned. There are some other issues to consider. Should the Usenet carriers have to pay for the distribution of shareware. There are many sites that rack up 3 and 4 digit phone bills just carrying Usenet. The last time I checked, Usenet was not supposed to be used for commercial purposes. In the case of shareware which demands a payment, I would say that this falls into the realm of commercialism. Shareware with an optional request for payment could be considered non-commercial. (I consider software that puts up a message every time it is used that reminds you that you might want to pay and find out how to disable the message to fall into the latter category. As long as there is no mandatory payment, there is an argument that the software is not commercial.) I consider crippleware, or software that self-destructs to fall into the realm of commercialism. Please remember that shareware which requires a payment is not much different that software that I purchase in a store. Most decent computer stores will let you try out a package before you buy it. Some will even let you return it if you don't like it after a few days. I think the point to consider is whether the Usenet carriers have to pay for commercial distribution. Why should the Usenet carriers subsidize the shareware businesses? I understand that this distribution method reduces the cost of distributing software. But if a certain company paid the cost of distribution, shouldn't their users be entitled to use that software? > Of course, I would like to see some indication of the fact that something > is shareware before I go to the trouble to download it to my computer. Maybe > a notation in the subject associated with its news letter would solve that > problem although at the expense of extra effort on the part of newsgroup > moderators. I think a better method would be to separate commercial software from non-commercial software. For example, if comp.binaries.ibm.pc.com was created for the posting of commercial (shareware) software, sites that did not want to subsidize shareware would not have to. I don't know what is involved, or if Rahul has the time, but all that might be involved is determining which of two groups he posts to. > Of course, those who pay for the network should have final say, but since > the network is carried FOR its users, I think the first question should > be what do the users want? I am not sure of that. May sites carry Usenet because it is available. Some carry it because it was an effective way of making internal groups available to different sites around the world. Some carry it because it gives their users a chance to ask questions to the net at large and to discuss ideas/problems that they have. Remember, only a small subset of Usenet is dedicated to software distributions. (Although that subset has a disproportionately large volume.) > I think that we mostly hear the shareware > haters and not the likers speaking out. I can't say that I like/dislike the concept of shareware. Nor can I say that I like/dislike the fact that Usenet subsidizes it. I can say that I dislike crippleware and shareware with mandatory payment. ... > Now the final point is of course, what are the policies controlling > usenet. I can't say that I'm familiar with them, but if they ban the > availability of cheap useful software, I'm not sure I agree with them. I don't think anybody has a problem with distributing cheap software. I think that most site have a problem with subsidizing other companies. How many different versions of file archivers/compressors would there be if SEA/PKWARE/etc. had to reimburse Usenet sites for the cost incurred in carrying their software. Or maybe everybody that gets shareware from the net should reimburse their company for the cost of making that software available. > Michael Stanley ...!uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jms@hcx -Israel Pinkas -- -------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The above are my personal opinions, and in no way represent the opinions of Intel Corporation. In no way should the above be taken to be a statement of Intel. UUCP: {amdcad,decwrl,hplabs,oliveb,pur-ee,qantel}!intelca!mipos3!cadev4!pinkas ARPA: pinkas%cadev4.intel.com@relay.cs.net CSNET: pinkas@cadev4.intel.com
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (04/02/89)
From article <PINKAS.89Mar31130213@hobbit.intel.com>, by pinkas@hobbit.intel.com (Israel Pinkas ~): > Or maybe everybody that gets shareware from the net should reimburse their > company for the cost of making that software available. And, for the same reason, maybe everyone who just logs in to read News should reimburse their company for making the News available. Why single out just those who appreciate this medium for file access? As a long-time sysop (6 years, which is ancient in the BBS racket) I know that there are users who like to participate in discussions and users who just like to download and upload files. Frankly, I think the issue of Shareware-on-the-net should be kicked up to the administrators of the sites responsible for cost of carrying it and to those deputized to look out for their interests (Rahul here). Whether or not a binary program posted on c.b.i.p demands payment after a trial period is really of no concern to the users, except insofar as they assume to speak for these administrators. Most of us here are pigs at the trough on Usenet, dependent upon the kindness of our hosts for any kind of access to the Net, you know. Even though I'm a published Shareware author and a member in ASP I can accept a decision either way as to whether or not Shareware should be here. I just want the judgment to be consistent and unarbitrary. For instance, there was an argument against ANY kind of binaries on the Net before the binaries newsgroup was founded. It was based on the sound rationale that binaries were of interest only to those with a particular hardware setup while the newsgroups only required interest in a topic. Likewise, when newsgroups like comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport were originally proposed, there was a lot of noise about this being "commercialization of the net" and in the respect that these newsgroups DO function as quasi-support groups for commercial products, they were right. What buried the purist's arguments wasn't their speciousness but user interest that these "exceptions" be made to enhance the usefulness of the Net. The question to the users, as I see it, isn't whether Shareware is "commercial" but whether it has value to the usership and these people are interested in having access to it. If not, dump it. If so, let the administrators decide. I'm not opposed to the idea of a comp.shareware.XXXX group to allow administrators more control over their systems either. -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM