Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: HAM
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.164437.29261@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 26 Jun 91 16:44:37 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.061653.29163@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 12

In article <1991Jun26.061653.29163@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, rjc@css.itd.umich.edu (Robert John Churchill) writes:
|> HAM would be commercial or shareware. He really just wants to get it
|> to as many people who want it as possible... this may mean that it
|> will be commercial, as the opinion was floating around that more people
|> would discover HAM if it were commercial as opposed to shareware,
|> freeware, whatever... many people still don't even know what the Internet
|> is and don't access online services.
What's wrong with doing both? It would be an interesting experiment:
see how many copies are registered through shareware vs commercial sales.
-- 
Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu