Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpcvra!everett From: everett@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Shareware Poll: The Results Message-ID: <27380004@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM> Date: 2 Oct 90 21:14:56 GMT References: <6208@uceng.UC.EDU> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA Lines: 31 peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes... >One thing I noticed is that people don't seem to care for the legalistic >version of shareware. You see terms like snareware and extortionware. The >folks who *write* such stuff, however, look down the noses of us folks >who just ask for a donation... that becomes beggerware. I think there is >a certain cognitive dissonance here. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' The problem here, Peter, is that many people will find a reason to justify their use of a program without paying for it, regardless of the means of distribution. 1) if it's commercial software they've pirated, they "would have bought my own copy if the price wasn't highway robbery!" 2) if it's freely distributed, but asks for donations, "It's BEGGARWARE!" 3) if it's freely distributed, but requires donations, "It's EXTORTIONWARE!" or "It's BUGGY! (but I limp along with it anyway, unregistered)" or "It's FREE! (because I didn't ask for it, it just showed up on my system!!)" 4) or, if there's locks on the software (to encourage registrations), "It's CRIPPLEWARE!!!" Basically, the people who use these arguments feel guilty that they're stealing someone else's work, and they RESENT feeling guilty, they feel that it's the author's fault that they feel guilty, and so they find defensive stances to hide their feelings of guilt from themselves. Hence, the "certain cognitive dissonance" of their arguments. Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon