mesmo@Portia.Stanford.EDU (Chris Johnson) (03/31/89)
The fundamental issue in the Shareware debate which has been raging in this group for several weeks seems to be that commercial Usenet sites object to subsidizing the business activities (ie advertising and distribution) of Shareware vendors, while many sites and users would like to receive them despite the cost. I have a suggestion which may be a suitable compromise to this problem. WHY NOT: . post in this group short descriptions of Shareware programs instead of large uuencoded binaries -- NOTE this does not affect posting of free programs . include in this description the address of a user or list-server which is willing to respond to requests for the binaries for a short time (a week or two, or whatever seems practical); and/or an anonymous ftp site for the less-patient This approach has the advantage that the small advertising cost is assumed by the net, while the much larger distribution cost is moved to the business which produced the software, or the user. A cost-cutting variation on this would be for the distributor to wait until the two weeks or whatever have passed, then mail out a few "chain letters" -- the requested binaries accompanied by a list of other users in your general area who also want the program. You mail the binary and an updated list to the next N people on the list. Problems with this approach include: . Someone has to pay for it -- who? Most Shareware companies have BBS's, but I don't know of any which are Usenet sites. Maybe the ASP would do this sort of thing? I don't know. . Someone has to write the descriptions. This suggests some sort of moderation, but God knows I won't suggest this task fall to Rahul. Perhaps a page-or-two, low hype content description from the author, accompanied by Rahul's usual paragraph or so? . It depends on mail. We all know how crummy the mail connection can be from Usenet <-> Bitnet <-> UUCP etc. Practically rules out the chain-letter approach. What do you all think? Is there a workable idea hiding in my suggestion? -- ============================================================================== Chris M Johnson === mesmo@portia.stanford.edu === "Grad school sucks rocks" ==============================================================================
djo7613@blake.acs.washington.edu (Dick O'Connor) (03/31/89)
Personally, I like the simplicity of the idea posted by someone here
awhile back: create one newsgroup for truly PD stuff, and one for
shareware. Sites that have a problem can subscribe to the PD one
only (or neither!). I know that creating more newsgroups is a bit of
work for someone (I don't know who!), but it would be plain up front
what you would be getting when you capture binaries from PD or Shareware
newsgroups.
Rahul works too hard as it is. He could pass the baton on to someone
else for one of the groups (I'd give him his choice). I wouldn't be
surprised to see ASP members volunteer to moderate the shareware group...
Dick O'Connor
Washington Department of Fisheries
Olympia, Washington 98504
Internet Mail: djo7613@blake.acs.washington.edu
****************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: I speak only for myself, not for the Department. Here, anyway!
****************************************************************************
So long, and thanks from all the fish...