Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!udel!princeton!notecnirp!nr
From: nr@notecnirp.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: What commercial programs to post?
Message-ID: <15825@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 89 17:34:06 GMT
Sender: news@princeton.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: nr@princeton.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
Lines: 27


I like the criterion that software posted to the net should be
intended to be useful, as is, for an indefinite period of time.  This
means no demos and no ``crippleware.''  

It sounds like a good idea to try to cooperate with the ASP on issues
like labelling (e.g. making a clear distinction between shareware and
PD *before* downloading) and how ``shareware'' and ``registered''
versions should differ (if at all).  It also might be possible to make
some kind of special agreement with the ASP given the noncommerical
nature of the USENET.  USENET reaches a lot of people who never call a
BBS, and the ASP might be willing to make concessions (like dropping
mandator payment notices) to reach that audience.  Would someone who
has connections with the ASP be willing to investigate?

I am surprised that some readers are so vehemently against shareware.
I agree with the poster who preferred that not all software posted be
the work of amateurs.  I am an amateur myself and I know how little
time I have to take care of my own software.

Would it help if software were clearly identified in the header?
Sites might be able to decide whether to keep postings on the basis of
classifications like ``shareware,'' ``freeware'' (like GNU), or
``public domain.''

Norman Ramsey
nr@princeton.edu