Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!epimass!jbuck
From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: What commercial programs to post?
Message-ID: <2991@epimass.EPI.COM>
Date: 22 Mar 89 02:58:47 GMT
References: <15825@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 75

In article <15825@princeton.Princeton.EDU> nr@princeton.Princeton.EDU (Norman Ramsey) writes:
>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.

Unfortunately, USENET has no central authority; there is no one to
negotiate for it.  Therefore it is not possible to negotiate an
agreement with ASP.  ASP could unilaterally decide to do something,
but that might not satisfy everyone.

Different organizations on USENET are constrained by different rules.
A lot of news traffic travels over NNTP links (the Internet).  The old
"no commercial use" rule has been bent a lot, but the idea that the
Internet is used to increase the profits of "shareware professionals"
is legally questionable at best.  Many government or university sites
might have to drop comp.binaries.ibm.pc altogether.

>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.

Oh, crap.  Most of the better freely redistributable software is
written by professional programmers, and there are few programmers in
the world more capable than Richard Stallman.  Much shareware is of
questionable value.  This "amateurs" stuff is simply a gratuitous
insult against people who have made major contributions.  Moderators
can and do filter the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not saying all software should be free, but damn it, lots of
universities, companies, and individuals are paying massive phone
bills to move this stuff around.  Let's say we allow unlimited
shareware on Usenet.  How much of the additional profit that goes to
ASP members will be given to well-connected Usenet sites to help pay
their phone bills, which can amount to thousands of dollars per month?
None?  I thought so.

With bulletin boards, the provider of the shareware is paying the
phone bill to transmit the shareware to the bbd site.  Not so with Usenet.
People are involuntarily made to contribute to the profit of others.
Now of course people are on the net because of financial benefit to
their companies; mail passes through my site even though it's no use
to me, which I do in exchange for having other people pass my mail
(except for certain freeloaders whose initials are A, T, T).  But this
is a bit too blatant to stomach.

I have no intention of restricting people's freedom.  Some site
administrators may have legal difficulties if they pass shareware around;
others want it available.  Some users may want levels of commercial
activity that other users find intolerable.  The answer, of course, is
alternate newsgroup hierarchies.  Create a different group for shareware,
and site admins with legal or moral problems with shareware may choose
not to subscribe if they wish.

>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.''

This is preferable, but there isn't a way to choose whether or not
to transmit an article except by using the Newsgroups: or Distribution:
header.  It hasn't been done before, but Rahul could add

Distribution: shareware

to shareware articles.  These wouldn't go anywhere unless sites added
"shareware" to their sys files to mark links that can legally pass shareware.

If you like this article, please mail me $1 to officially register your
copy. :-)
-- 
-- Joe Buck	jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck