Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!husc6!purdue!sage.cc.purdue.edu!rusbara2
From: rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v08i116: ozshare1, shareware utils (part 01/10)
Keywords: Overpriced Shareware
Message-ID: <4629@sage.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 90 21:21:08 GMT
References: <2071@sixhub.UUCP> <4615@sage.cc.purdue.edu> <5253@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> <4623@sage.cc.purdue.edu> <6419@uceng.UC.EDU>
Reply-To: rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 64

In article <6419@uceng.UC.EDU> dsims@uceng.UC.EDU (david l sims) writes:
>rusbara2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan) writes:
>>Also, even though I was against it in the past, maybe there should be
>>some arbitrary price limit for posting here.

>c.b.i.p.d (pronounced "C-Bipped" :-) is a public forum, am I not right?
>Then certainly we can't say "no software over US $X". Like someone said,
>it's a free market....

Is it?  I thought Bill was more like a friendly dictator.  I still crack
up over how this group was going on and on and on about which archiver to
us.  There were like 400 articles a day about it, and then Bill came in
and said something like, "Hi.  I'm the new moderator.  We're using zoo."
End of subject.

>I learned from my shareware poll a few weeks back that some people
>consider shareware programs in c.b.i.p to be "unsolicited software"
>and, therefore, they don't have to pay for what gets dumped in their mailbox.
>Do the authors of shareware posted to c.b.i.p realize this? Do the
>authors even *know* that their stuff is being posted?

I don't know about that.  I think by reading it we solicit it.  On the
other hand, there is the age-old debate over whether or not shareware
should be allowed on usenet AT ALL.  But let's not start that again...

>Perhaps c.b.i.p should contain public domain and freeware packages only.

I don't see how you can reconcile this with the "public forum" bit, unless
you're saying that we have to either allow shareware at any price, no
matter how ridiculous, or we have to ban it completely.  If that's what
you're saying I must disagree.  I think it's up to Bill.  If he doesn't
like something he can trash it, but hopefully he'll take what we want
into consideration.  And he does; he's posted many things with a note
saying he didn't particularly care for this type of thing but though some
of us might.

In other words, if there is a clear consensus on a price limit and he
agrees to go along with it I don't think that violates any law or anything.
He judges things on certain criteria, and we can suggest that we'd like
the price to be one of them.

On the other hand, I must admit I like the idea of only free software.
I remember the good ol' days when I would get Compute!'s Gazette and
type in free, and often very good, programs for my old 64.

For a long time now Compute!'s PC Magazine has just been serving up a
disk of pre-compiled shareware that you're expected to pay for in 
addition to buying the disk.  Really nice.

To answer another questions, while it's not always the case it seems that
the author's often submit things.  If no shareware was allowed it would
be nice if we could get some genuine PD or freeware.  Maybe some people
would waive the fee just to get more exposure.

Yeah, right.  It would be nice though.  Shareware *is* a good idea, but
it seems to have the unfortunate side effect of all but killing PD for
PCs.  On unix free things with source code still float around freely,
and you'll also notice that many UNIX-like things for the PC are genuine
PD...kind of tells you something, huh?  Unfortunately, I'm afraid the
PC trend represents the wave of the future.

----
Bob Rusbasan
bob@en.ecn.purdue.edu