nr@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey) (03/22/89)
I like the criterion that software posted to the net should be intended to be useful, as is, for an indefinite period of time. This means no demos and no ``crippleware.'' It sounds like a good idea to try to cooperate with the ASP on issues like labelling (e.g. making a clear distinction between shareware and PD *before* downloading) and how ``shareware'' and ``registered'' versions should differ (if at all). It also might be possible to make some kind of special agreement with the ASP given the noncommerical nature of the USENET. USENET reaches a lot of people who never call a BBS, and the ASP might be willing to make concessions (like dropping mandator payment notices) to reach that audience. Would someone who has connections with the ASP be willing to investigate? I am surprised that some readers are so vehemently against shareware. I agree with the poster who preferred that not all software posted be the work of amateurs. I am an amateur myself and I know how little time I have to take care of my own software. Would it help if software were clearly identified in the header? Sites might be able to decide whether to keep postings on the basis of classifications like ``shareware,'' ``freeware'' (like GNU), or ``public domain.'' Norman Ramsey nr@princeton.edu
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (03/22/89)
In article <15825@princeton.Princeton.EDU> nr@princeton.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey) writes: >It sounds like a good idea to try to cooperate with the ASP on issues >like labelling (e.g. making a clear distinction between shareware and >PD *before* downloading) and how ``shareware'' and ``registered'' >versions should differ (if at all). It also might be possible to make >some kind of special agreement with the ASP given the noncommerical >nature of the USENET. Unfortunately, USENET has no central authority; there is no one to negotiate for it. Therefore it is not possible to negotiate an agreement with ASP. ASP could unilaterally decide to do something, but that might not satisfy everyone. Different organizations on USENET are constrained by different rules. A lot of news traffic travels over NNTP links (the Internet). The old "no commercial use" rule has been bent a lot, but the idea that the Internet is used to increase the profits of "shareware professionals" is legally questionable at best. Many government or university sites might have to drop comp.binaries.ibm.pc altogether. >I am surprised that some readers are so vehemently against shareware. >I agree with the poster who preferred that not all software posted be >the work of amateurs. I am an amateur myself and I know how little >time I have to take care of my own software. Oh, crap. Most of the better freely redistributable software is written by professional programmers, and there are few programmers in the world more capable than Richard Stallman. Much shareware is of questionable value. This "amateurs" stuff is simply a gratuitous insult against people who have made major contributions. Moderators can and do filter the wheat from the chaff. I'm not saying all software should be free, but damn it, lots of universities, companies, and individuals are paying massive phone bills to move this stuff around. Let's say we allow unlimited shareware on Usenet. How much of the additional profit that goes to ASP members will be given to well-connected Usenet sites to help pay their phone bills, which can amount to thousands of dollars per month? None? I thought so. With bulletin boards, the provider of the shareware is paying the phone bill to transmit the shareware to the bbd site. Not so with Usenet. People are involuntarily made to contribute to the profit of others. Now of course people are on the net because of financial benefit to their companies; mail passes through my site even though it's no use to me, which I do in exchange for having other people pass my mail (except for certain freeloaders whose initials are A, T, T). But this is a bit too blatant to stomach. I have no intention of restricting people's freedom. Some site administrators may have legal difficulties if they pass shareware around; others want it available. Some users may want levels of commercial activity that other users find intolerable. The answer, of course, is alternate newsgroup hierarchies. Create a different group for shareware, and site admins with legal or moral problems with shareware may choose not to subscribe if they wish. >Would it help if software were clearly identified in the header? >Sites might be able to decide whether to keep postings on the basis of >classifications like ``shareware,'' ``freeware'' (like GNU), or >``public domain.'' This is preferable, but there isn't a way to choose whether or not to transmit an article except by using the Newsgroups: or Distribution: header. It hasn't been done before, but Rahul could add Distribution: shareware to shareware articles. These wouldn't go anywhere unless sites added "shareware" to their sys files to mark links that can legally pass shareware. If you like this article, please mail me $1 to officially register your copy. :-) -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/22/89)
From article <15825@princeton.Princeton.EDU>, by nr@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey): > It sounds like a good idea to try to cooperate with the ASP on issues > like labelling (e.g. making a clear distinction between shareware and > PD *before* downloading) and how ``shareware'' and ``registered'' > versions should differ (if at all). ASP policy (or, rather, policy probably to be voted on in the next couple of weeks and most likely passed) is that there should be no difference between registered and Shareware versions, with the exception of after-registration services (like support) or nonessential enticements like source code, printed manuals, etc. I'm coming from a vested position, of course, but I think if you're going to have Shareware it's in everyone's best interests to support the group that's trying to address the gripes and misunderstandings in the market. I only joined ASP fairly recently and was completely unaware that users EXPECT such stuff as a fresh disk with the latest version (I asssumed that they already had it) and a receipt for their registration fee, even if paid for by check. I've also had my chops busted for not offering registered users printed, bound documentation so out I go today to pick up a laser printer and Manuscript. > It also might be possible to make > some kind of special agreement with the ASP given the noncommerical > nature of the USENET. USENET reaches a lot of people who never call a > BBS, and the ASP might be willing to make concessions (like dropping > mandator payment notices) to reach that audience. Would someone who > has connections with the ASP be willing to investigate? ASP doesn't have the mandate to tell authors how to market their software, what prices to charge, what license terms to demand, etc. ASP is just an association of independent authors and vendors trying to bring some kind of standard of ethics and professionalism to the Shareware market. Members may either choose to follow ASP guidelines or (in the absence of satisfactory resolution with the board) resign. > Would it help if software were clearly identified in the header? > Sites might be able to decide whether to keep postings on the basis of > classifications like ``shareware,'' ``freeware'' (like GNU), or > ``public domain.'' Someone else here suggested that and I think it's good idea. This is something I'm going to propose to the members as a general advisory to authors who upload their own products to distribution sites. Perhaps just a "xxxxxxxx (ASP)" would suffice on those systems with restricted description headers. -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/24/89)
One thing all of this discussion has done is to keep some of my software
off the net. I ditribute some things as "sourceware," meaning that there
is no fee even requested for the executables, but the source is sold for
a modest fee. Rather than try to decide if this is legitimate or not, I
have just not posted it, since there are commercial "pay before you try"
packages to do most of the same things.
I will continue to post things like bpe, etc, for which no fees are asked.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM)
{uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -medhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/24/89)
In article <13406@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >...there >is no fee even requested for the executables, but the source is sold for >a modest fee. Rather than try to decide if this is legitimate or not, I >have just not posted it... I think this type of software deserves to be posted. If you deleted all reference to the availability of source, then this would just become a free executable, and there are plenty of those around. Adding a paragrph offering source for money doesn't make the binary any less useful. P.S. I have seen quite a few opinions expressed here and I have generally resisted trying to respond to all of them. I'm saving all opinions expressed rather trying to argue with anybody. Let's just call it an exercise in fact-finding. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu