Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: of flames and sources (was: Re: Fred - A terminal Program) Message-ID: <462@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Sat, 10-Oct-87 01:51:06 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.462 Posted: Sat Oct 10 01:51:06 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Oct-87 01:07:43 EDT References: <246@ddsw1.UUCP> <203@papaya.bbn.com> <451@brandx.rutgers.edu> <251@ddsw1.UUCP> Distribution: alt Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 125 Summary: reply In article <251@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <451@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >In article <203@papaya.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > >> In alt.sources (<246@ddsw1.UUCP>), ringwld!jmturn@CCA.CCA.COM (James M. Turner) writes: > >> XCopyright (c) 1986, Pipe Dream Associates > >> X > >> XFRED is shareware, Pipe Dream Associates retains any and all > >> Xcopyrights to this software. It may be copied or uploaded so > >> Xlong as no attempt is made to charge for it. > >> XFRED represents a great deal of work on my part, over a year of > >> Xdevelopment. I have no real desire to market this as a product, but > >> Xif you find FRED useful, you might see your way to send me something > >> Xto recompense this development time. > >> Sigh. You could argue that as moderator of comp.sources.unix I have an > >> axe to grind, but I really hate people using the net to post shareware; > >> my phone is being used to help you get money (yes, BBN has UUCP links :-). > >I agree with you 100%. This is blatent commercial usage of the net > >(as well as attempted emotional blackmail for those of you who > >remember net.singles a few years back). A much bigger threat to the > >net than even the backbone. > I disagree 100%. No one is attempting to extort or blackmail anyone. How > many of you out there in 'netland' use Procomm? How many paid the > validation fee? There is only one of me, thank you. I certainly do not use Procomm. > Your phone is being used to help people get money all the time. Look at > the technical groups, please. How many times have you heard "This (product, > company, etc) is really great" with a disclaimer "I am only a user of the I think you have mistaken the micro groups for typical technical groups. Things like comp.arch, sci.math, or comp.unix-wizards are technical groups and there is relatively little ``gee whiz this product is neat'' stuff going on there. In many of the micro groups, you get a mix of people who want to discuss technical problems and people who want to find ``the best cheap 2400-baud modem.'' To answer your question, yes I object to such postings in the strongest sense and take extreme and uncompromising action, i.e., I don't make such postings myself! > product" or something similar. This puts money in people's pockets too. Do > you object to this kind of posting as well? And how often does the net help > you or your company in daily business? HAS IT EVER? If so, *you too* are > commercially exploiting the net. Shall we just cut off all the technical > groups and sources too, leaving only those groups which seem to never help > anyone (soc & talk!). Why sources? There are plenty of people who openly and uncompromisingly donate their software with no strings attached. There is also alot else going on in the comp groups than people advertising products. > C'mon, folks. No one *forces* you to contribute -- in fact, the posting > in question didn't even mention a specific contribution as 'recommended'! Then what is all this business about > >> XFRED represents a great deal of work on my part, over a year of > >> Xdevelopment. I have no real desire to market this as a product, but > >> Xif you find FRED useful, you might see your way to send me something > >> Xto recompense this development time. While I will admit that it isn't direct use of force, it really is just about as demanding as once can be in ASCII. Of course, I will ignore it, but again, I ignored the program that went with it as well (who wants to hassle with copyrighted sources anyway?). > Are you arguing that you'd rather not see this kind of posting at all? I > don't know about you, but Fred is useful to me here. Why is it so terrible > to do the equivalent of 'panhandling' if you've provided a useful tool? `Panhandling' is exactly what you are doing. There are laws against that in many places in the U.S. Besides this you are also appearing to donate a source while retaining: > >> XFRED is shareware, Pipe Dream Associates retains any and all > >> Xcopyrights to this software. It may be copied or uploaded so > >> Xlong as no attempt is made to charge for it. Swell, I can copy and download (oops only upload) it and that's it. Why won't you let me compile it? Run it? Fix it? Extend it? > A much greater threat than the backbone?? Please substantiate this > statement. I don't see how posting such articles threatens anything -- Well, I will admit that it is a matter of taste which evil is worse. However, what postings like this ``shareware'' posting do is establish and environment where people are oriented toward ``making money off the net.'' Once people start making money off the net, sites will want to get their `cut.' And before you know it, we have BIX, Compuserve, or some other silliness. > ESPECIALLY considering that it was posted to the 'alt-net'. I always > thought that 'alt' was a place for postings that didn't belong (or wouldn't `always' is a long time, much longer than `alt-net' has ever existed. Anyway, it would doubtless have ``passed muster.'' Indeed they will probably copy it off alt.sources into one of the moderated sources groups (as has happened often in the past). > pass muster) in the other groups. After all, you are free to unsubscribe, > or not carry the group at all if you're terribly affronted with this > sort of thing! It is very hard to unsubscribe from shareware software and other violations of net ettiquite. About all you can do is curse and delete and once and a while flame. Perhaps some day they will include warnings about using the net to advertise and distribute copyrighted commercial software in ``How to Use the Usenet.'' But for now, all that is left is to from time to time `raise the issue.' > In short, I don't see anything wrong with someone asking for a small > contribution for their efforts. Just like the panhandler on the sidewalk, > you are always free to ignore the request. But it gives the neighborhood a bad name if too many of them collect! > (Let's also not forget that our comp.binaries.ibm.pc moderator was posting > PKARC 3.5, which is *SHAREWARE*, on a monthly basis for a while. No one > seemed to have a problem with the shareware status of this product -- in > fact, the binary group STANDARDIZED on this archiver! You wanna talk > commercial use and extortion??? Hell, PKARC was shoved down our throats!) Obviously you don't read comp.sources.d or you would already know MY opinion of binaries, copyrighted sources, and other such garbage on the net. ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)