Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!tank!mimsy!eneevax!haven!rutgers!att!cbnews!shurr
From: shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <4981@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Mar 89 18:04:19 GMT
References: <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2967@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 30

Like Brad Templeton, I too disagree with Rahul's proposed "no
commercial postings" policy (i.e., no posting of shareware with
mandatory fees for use beyond an evaluation period).

I would prefer something along the lines of Brad's proposal: a
sort of "utility criterion," though maybe "value criterion" would
be a more appropriate term.  In this scheme, the software should
be somehow "worth" the amount requested/required.  Certainly I
think it should be "worth" "something."

Thus, a rolodex program with a mandatory usage fee of $1000 is
probably not a good candidate, nor is/was the multi-megabyte,
but limited functionality demo program that was posted during 
the no moderator hiatus.  Procomm, however, which has - in my 
view - a reasonable mandatory fee, is a good candidate for
posting (I'm using a bought-and-paid-for Procomm Plus, so you 
net.police.shareware.violation.enforcement types just stop slavering 
over your F'lame - excuse me, F'ollowup - keys).  The no-mandatory-
fee-that-I-know-of Pibterm version 4 is also a good candidate.

I realize that it's tempting to flame me over the subjectivity of
the "value" in "value criterion," but please resist the temptation.
Instead, consider supporting the proposal and contribute meaning-
fully to establishing an appropriate policy.

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)