Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!homxb!hounx!marty1 From: marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Message-ID: <1295@hounx.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Mar 89 18:02:04 GMT References: <3529@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Organization: AT&T BL Holmdel NJ USA Lines: 77 From article <3529@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, by dillon@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ian Dillon): > In article <1291@hounx.ATT.COM> marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: >> >>Do we want to distribute only what amateur programmers produce? An >>amateur programmer is either a student, or an adult using his >>employer's resources, or a hobbyist. They don't need payment. > > I don't believe this guy! Mr. Brilliant has displayed the perfect > example of industrial arrogance. To start off, why shouldn't a > student or hobbyist be reimbursed for her/his efforts? .... Please calm down. I agree with you. A student is allowed to be reimbursed for his/her efforts, and in that case, he/she becomes a professional. Justin Boyan (author of Boyan Communications) is a student and a professional. He uses the money from his programming for his education. No problem. > .... If the > program is genuine, and proves useful, then they "do need payment". Some do, some don't. If they don't ask for payment, I assume they don't need payment, so I call them amateurs. Let me try to explain. I don't mean all students and hobbyists are amateurs. I mean a lot of amateurs are hobbyists or students. OK? > Does a person have to work in a big industrial complex, to qualify > as a "professional"? .... Of course not. You qualify as a professional by asking for payment. > ...... If so, what happens when top notch programmers > decide to go back to school on a part-time basis? I'm sure there are > many MBA candidates who would have a tough time swallowing your comments. I would agree that whatever they do the other part of their time, if they get paid for it, is professional. No problem. >> ...... If we want shareware I think we >>have to accept it on the professionals' terms. > > In other words, software distribution should be exclusive to industrial > "professionals". Wouldn't this be a crock? ...... All I really meant by that remark is that anybody who asks for money is a professional. Then we have to decide whether we want to distribute professional products, or only amateur products. Amateur products can be good too, they're just free. The only difference between shareware and shrinkwrapware is that the copyright owner allows (and wants) us to distribute shareware. Whether we actually do is up to us. > ..... The main goal of the net is > to provide open communication for anyone who has access to it... Including free distribution for shareware? OK, if that's your opinion, I respect that. I might even agree with it, but I don't pay the costs of distribution. That's the problem - we, the users, have to be careful about setting the rules, because we're not the payers. > ..... Personally, > I think if anyone has a good program to sell or distribute freely, then > the net serves as a great opportunity to do so. > > Viva' la hobbyist! Sure. No question, the hobbyist should get free time on the net. The question is only whether the professional, defined simple as someone who wants money for his/her work, should get free time. Sorry if I didn't get my point across clearly the first time. Hope this helps. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.