Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucbernie!shebanow
From: shebanow@ucbernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Shebanow)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Cleaning up net.sources.mac
Message-ID: <10674@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 00:14:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10674
Posted: Wed Oct 16 00:14:11 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 01:15:01 EDT
References: <1134@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA
Reply-To: shebanow@ucbernie.UUCP (Mike Shebanow)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 103
Keywords: net.shareware.mac
Xref: watmath net.news:4064 net.micro.mac:2988


[ Beware of the line eater... Why is this bug still around? ]


Recently, Joel West (jww@sdscvax) published a letter in which he
criticized the proliferation of freeware in net.sources.mac.
To quote:

> 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.
> 
> (lest someone think I exaggerate the magnitude of this, I've
> enclosed a typescript at the end that I encourage you to try)
>
> Shareware is useful, but I don't think various sites should pay
> their TelCo for someone else's marketing.  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.

As a developer who has posted shareware to net.sources.mac, I feel
compelled to argue his extremely negative assessment of shareware.

First of all, it is not reasonable to divide all software into two camps:
public domain and commercial. Shareware came into existence because
developers felt a need to profit from their labor while avoiding the
nastier aspects of licensing software to a publisher (like dealing with
the all-too-common royalty audit). It would be great if we could just give
our software away, but I for one can not afford to spend several hundred
hours on a program I am going to give away.

And it should be pointed out that shareware is not exactly the fast track
to massive profit: for every copy of a program that is registered, hundreds
(if not thousands) of unregistered copies are used by the unscrupulous and
the lazy. (Yes, you should feel guilty). I will consider myself very, very
lucky if I break even on my program. In fact, in spite of my attraction to
the freeware concept, I doubt that I will release another shareware
product. The number of responses has been an order of magnitude too small.

Shareware is not simply a way for developers to avoid the normal
obligations associated with publishing software. Shareware actually
provides many benefits for both the developer and the user.

For the developer, shareware has these advantages:

	1) Shareware allows small independent software developers
	to have their products get wide distribution without having
	to give magazines large quantities of money for small and
	marginally effective ads.

	2) Shareware gives developers a way to distribute useful products
	intended for small markets for a profit (although not a very big
	one). Many software packages are refused by publishers because
	they are unlikely to be stocked in a retail outlet due to their
	limited marketplace.

	3) Shareware provides a way for a small developer to achieve
	recognition for its later products, and a 'track history' in
	the software market.

For the user, shareware has these advantages:

	1) It allows users to try a product for an extensive period
	of time without any signifigant cost.

	2) It avoids the 'rip-off' feeling that people get when they
	find out that the product in the fancy box with the glossy but
	uninformative demo program turns out to be useless.

Distributing a product as shareware does not imply a lack of support,
documentation or testing. I can only speak from personal experience, but
I guarantee that people who send me money for my program (a Make utility)
will receive far better support from me than they will from MicroSoft for
their copy of Word (have you ever tried to call MicroSoft? I have been
kept on hold by them for more than 30 minutes!). While my documentation may
not be spiral-bound, it should provide all the information that is
necessary to use the program. And I and several friends used the product
for quite some time before it was placed on the net.

Now for a disclaimer: like commercial software, shareware is often of very
poor quality. Most of the shareware distributed is not very interesting,
but I believe it would be foolish to ban all freeware from the net because
some of it is poorly done. Look at the programs which have been distributed
as shareware (FEdit, Red Ryder, and the Mock series of desk accessories
for the Mac, and PCWrite & PCTalk, for the IBM PC).

I hope that I have given enough reason for net.sources.mac to remain a
safe harbor for shareware. If worse comes to worse, I think that having
a seperate net.shareware.mac (or some such) would be tolerable. I think
that banning shareware from the net would be a tragedy.

In any event, the whole discussion may soon be a moot point. Shareware may
be extinct soon, and I think that that will be the real tragedy. If you
use a shareware program more than once every two monthes or so, send in
your registration fees. You will be doing a service to the user community.

	Andrew G. Shebanow
	HyperSoft