Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Comp.shareware - call for discussion
Keywords: I jumped the gun
Message-ID: <15123@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 26 Jan 90 03:10:20 GMT
References: <140@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 21

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.