Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!uflorida!mlb.semi.harris.com!trantor.harris-atd.com!charybdis!sonny
From: sonny@charybdis.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Where are the PD & Freeware (not Shareware) Archives?
Message-ID: <5192@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Date: 7 Jan 91 01:18:07 GMT
References: <5156@trantor.harris-atd.com> <1991Jan5.223144.7942@beach.csulb.edu> <1991Jan6.141927.22377@uwasa.fi> <5190@trantor.harris-atd.com> <1991Jan6.190825.26064@uwasa.fi>
Sender: news@trantor.harris-atd.com
Reply-To: sonny@trantor.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis)
Organization: Advanced Technology Dept., Harris ESS, Melbourne, FL
Lines: 53

In article <1991Jan6.190825.26064@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes:
>In article <5190@trantor.harris-atd.com> sonny@trantor.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis) writes:
>:
>>	From the informed user's standpoint, it would be wonderful if
>>archive indexes flagged software as: 
>>	1. PD (anyone can use, modify, sell it even, without paying anyone 
>>	       anything)
>>	2. Freeware (Copyrighted but free to the individual, 
>>		     noncommercial user. Commercial users often
>>		     have to pay.)
>>	3. Shareware (Free distribution and trial use, but if I like it
>>	              and continue to use it, I pay for it).
>>	From all evidence, even software authors are confused about these
>>classifications. For example, I have seen a package in which the author
>
>Yes, it would certainly be worderful, but probably also totally
>impractical. At least two reasons:
>  1) As you state yourself, there is too much confusion on the
>     classification.
>  2) Consider the amount of work involved. E.g. classifying the all
>     files uwasa.fi and Simtel20 have might take years of work.
>     
>(The road to hell has always been paved with good intentions :-)

	Certainly I did not mean to suggest going through the
massive and Excellent archives at uwasa.fi and Simtel20 solely
to mark the files. On the other hand, you and Petersen do an
astounding amount of updating already, incorporating new versions
(often with new one-line descriptions). 
	So perhaps future one-liner descriptions supplied by authors could 
be requested to contain the designators: P: for Public Domain, 
F: for Freeware, and S: for Shareware -- or something similar -- in all 
cases for which the designation is known. That way, over time at least, the 
archive would become categorized. And if the submitters incorporated the 
designators in their supplied 1-liner descriptions themselves, the moderator 
might not be additionally burdened. (For the life of me, I cannot comprehend
how you or Petersen get around to all the current maintenance functions you
both perform so admirably. The usefulness of this archival work to DOS
users and the work that must be involved in it is certainly not 
underestimated by me -- nor, I would guess, by most of the DOS users on
the net.)
	The confusion over the designations might be eliminated if,
in the rules for submission to the archive, definitions were given
for P:, F:, and S: designations, and the authors had to choose one.

(Might not the stairway to Heaven be built one gilded step at a time? :-)

_____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Davis, UofALA alum \\ INTERNET: sonny@trantor.harris-atd.com  |  _   _  |
Harris Corporation, ESS \\    UUCP: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!sonny |_| |_| | |
Advanced Technology Dept.\\ AETHER: K4VNO          |==============|_/\/\/\|_|
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912     \\ VOICE: (407) 727-5886 | I SPEAK ONLY | |_| |_| |
Melbourne, FL 32902        \\  FAX: (407) 729-2537 | FOR MYSELF.  |_________|