Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!guest
From: guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Cleaning up net.sources.mac
Message-ID: <318@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 20:14:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.318
Posted: Mon Oct 21 20:14:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 06:34:50 EDT
References: <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.news:4122 net.micro.mac:3115

> Previously there'd been some concern that net.sources.mac had
> become net.binhex.mac.  This is certainly the case, but I would
> argue that it still performing a useful function.
> 
> Recently, however, I've noticed that the net is becoming a distribution
> channel for profit-making software enterprises.  That's right, I'm talking
> about
> 	SHAREWARE 
> 	(aka freeware, though the software is neither shared nor free)
> 
> However, it appears that net.sources.mac is now being filled with
> "shareware".  Since I don't see Microsoft or Lotus using it for
> distribution, I must conclude that the software there is:
>       *	Not worth enough to support conventional distribution
> 	channels -- either in testing, documentation, or support; or
>       *	The author thinks he can get others to do his work for him
> 	for free.

	*	The author chooses not to spend the necessary megabucks
	in advertising required to get interest from dealers.
 
> Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay
> their TelCo for someone else's marketting.  I propose we either
> 	1.  Ban shareware from the net or
> 	2.  Confine it to specific newsgroups (mod.shareware)
> 	    that sites may or may not carry.

There are a number of reasons why an individual may choose to distribute
through shareware channels other than the quality of the software.  Indeed
there are quite a few good "Share-ware" programs, but shareware should
not be placed in the same distribution channels as Free-ware.

This is one vote for option 2, give shareware a separate newsgroup.

Another request would be to separate "binary" (binhex, uuencode,...) from
source newsgroups.  Manuals and documentation should go in sources if the
source is posted, otherwise, put it in a "binary" group.