Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:11988 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11343
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!kgregory
From: kgregory@bbn.COM (Keith D. Gregory)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Shareware:  A specific case.
Message-ID: <6542@ccv.bbn.COM>
Date: 3 Feb 88 16:07:22 GMT
References: <94fordjm@byuvax.bitnet>
Reply-To: kgregory@ccv.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Keith D. Gregory)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambdridge MA
Lines: 89
Keywords: shareware freeware public-domain

In article <94fordjm@byuvax.bitnet> fordjm@byuvax.bitnet writes:
>Now, here's my view on others' using it.  I have a commitment to social
>science research.  I feel that it can be important and beneficial (not that
>it *always* is, no flames, please) and would like this program to get around
>so that it can be used to train interviewers for research projects. On the
>other hand, marketing and political opinion research is *big business* (I
>have been employed in these fields) and I feel that if someone found my
>program useful in a *primarily*financially*motivated*enterprise* (e.g. a
>business) that it would be fair for me to share in the profit gained from
>my work.
>
>With this in mind, I presently intend to distribute my program through PD
>channels with the invitation for all to use it freely to research or personal
>skill development, but if it is used for training in a business setting
>I request that I be sent some sort of fee (which I haven't decided upon.).
>I do not intend to maintain this program after it is debugged and I do
>not (as yet, anyway) make any portion of my living writing software.

I think you have an excellent approach, and one that has been used by several
entities with good effect.  I think that the most common (in the MS-Dos world)
is the Fido BBS system - it is free to anyone that wants to set up a public 
access BBS, yet costs $100 for companies which want to set up a corporate BBS.


Which brings me to my feelings on shareware - which boil down to the fact that
there are a lot of people that write programs, then decide to see if they can
make some money from those programs.

Let's face it - there are two types of programs.  The first is the application
- Lotus, PC-Write, and ProComm all fall into this category.  The second is a
utility - ARC, KERMIT, and perhaps 75% of the "shareware" programs fall into
this category.

The first category, I think, is very specifically written for mass marketing.
Such programs may either be marketed commercially (like Lotus), or via
Shareware (like PC-Write and ProComm).  With these programs, you get features
that the original designer probably didn't need, but included for the end-user.
My opinion is that programs such as these should definately be paid for - that
payment induces future development.

Then there are the utilities.  ARC is perhaps the most prevalent example here,
but I consider it a bad example (more later).  Utility programs are written by
people for their own use, and released through public distribution channels.
Which is fine - except that people tend to think "well, now that it's written,
let's see if it will sell".  Which is the wrong attitude to take, since you
write the program to suit your needs, not the needs of the general public.  And
yet, one constantly sees "directory lister" programs, with a $25 "donation" 
requested.

As I've said, ARC is a bad example.  Why is that?  First off, if you use any
public-access communications system, you MUST have ARC to be able to upload
or download files.  For this point alone, I would refuse to pay a shareware
fee for ARC.


So, what do I do with shareware programs?  For the most part, I don't use them.
As a consultant, my machine is my income, and I am too worried about Trojan
Horses to allow much shareware on it.  I use Procomm (which I have paid for),
Kermit, ARC (only used for up and downloading), and a few other utilities - 
all of which have been on my system for years (I also keep daily tape backups).

At work, I have several programs which fit into the "utility" category, and no,
I haven't paid for them.

I have also produced several shareware programs.  The latest (due for release
whenever I get the time to finish testing) will examine all of your directories
to find files that have been modified (it checks against a list containing
filename, size, and date/time).  Including all testing, this program took about
a day to write, has a well-defined user interface, and a lot of bells and
whistles that I may never use.  But I wrote it primarily for my own use - I
was worried about such virus's as the COMMAND.COM infection (which can be
discovered using just such a program).  Regardless of the amount of income
I lost by spending time on this program isntead of other, paying work, I have
absolutely no interest in making money from it.  I will be released with source
code, and for unlimited distribution (although I will retain copyright).


Well, at this point, if you haven't pressed "n", you're probably wondering what
the point is.  I gues there isn't any point, just a personal view of what's
right (and wrong) about shareware.  For applications, I consider it to be the
best method of marketing - and if I use a Sharewasre application, then I will
pay for it.  For many other programs, however, it is almost an indignity.  I
feel that the computer-using community (especially the home-computer-using
community) grew because people were willing to freely exchange the results of
their labor (I note that, of the PD programs I use, all were written pre-1985).
Expecting money for programs that were written to fill your own need is just a
bit silly.

-kdg