Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: (Long) Answer to Question of .net ethics Keywords: Summary of shareware responses Message-ID: <15939@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 11 Oct 90 06:50:54 GMT References: Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Lines: 21 In article dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes: >Everyone condemned "shareware" - ie, no-one is willing to be "forced" to >register a program to continue using it. > >Most people didn't mind "beggarware" - ie, a request for a voluntary donation. >However, they didn't think anyone would get rich on this. Sorry, but where I come from, true "shareware" MEANS voluntary donations. Packages that browbeat the user into contributing are just obnoxious "threatware" or whatever you want to call it. Nomenclature seems to have been degraded in some quarters. Nevertheless I think there is a tacit agreement that asking for donations over the net in ANY form, even in a source README, is bad form. The traditional Usenet format is source-only freeware. It got us where we are today. Unfortunately as the net floods with BBS refugees this tradition is endangered and needs reinforcement. -- Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, || Tom Neff lying in hospitals dying of nothing. -- Redd Foxx || tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM