Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!felix!art
From: art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <88460@felix.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 89 23:21:12 GMT
References: <88151@felix.UUCP> <595@marob.MASA.COM>
Reply-To: art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 97

In article <595@marob.MASA.COM> manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) writes:
>Conspicuously absent in your message was the name of even one such
>Shareware program.  I'm in ASP, know the members and know their software
>and haven't got a clue what you're referring to.  Please specify, or else
>someone please open a window to vent the warm air in here.

Since I have been burned before, I no longer seek "free" software through
that source.  It has been about a year or more since I logged into a
BBS due to this problem.  I don't know what the current status of
these BBS's are but back then the short descriptions did not lead me
to believe I was getting shareware.

Also I was not even aware of ASP until I saw a reference here on the
net couple months ago.  Sorry to include ASP members in the barrel but
you know what they say about one apple.

>All ASP members produce Shareware programs BUT not all Shareware
>authors are in ASP.  Applicants to ASP have their software evaluated by
> ...
>and documentation meets ASP standards.  You can rage on about Shareware
>and, in some cases, you might be justified in doing so.  That was
>precisely the reason why ASP was formed.  There are a lot of charlatans
>out there hanging up the "Shareware" logo and ripping off consumers,
>which affects all of us.

This seems to be the crux of the problem.  Where ASP members take
great pains to do the right thing, its these others that ruin it.

>How were you led to believe it was PD?  How do you know it's not a
>pirated commercial program or a virus or a piece of crow meat completely
>unsuitable for the task you grabbed it for?  The fact is, you don't.
>Would you rather spend 20 minutes downloading a PD hard disk organizer
>that trashes your ST4096 directories or one that works (because it's
>passed muster by ASP) and requests a modest registration fee?

Viruses and the like are a different problem.  When I inspected the
listing or description files for software, nothing was said that a
specific program was shareware.  This is the beef, not viruses (another
problem alltogether).

>Besides, if you're paying CIS $$ to download programs rather than
>calling your local BBSes for free, who should you blame for that?

I blame the poor state of the local BBS's.  When I was able to get on,
after many attempts, and after many hours of looking around, typically
I would find little to interest me.  What little I would find turned
out to be shareware in many cases.  The description of the program
would not say one word about shareware.

>There are also fly-by-night mail order houses.  If it's an ASP signatory,
>like Nelson Ford's "Public Software Library", their catalog spells out
>quite clearly that a particular program is Shareware and how much the
>registration fee is.  You're just dealing with the wrong houses.

Do you consider Austin Code Works a fly-by-night mail order house?
I got some data disks from them and they turned out to be shareware.
I do have to say this was more than two years ago, never bought
anything from them since.  They may be beter now, I don't know.

>How would you propose to denote a Shareware program listing on a BBS
>when an author can't even guarantee that people will maintain the
>distributed filename of the program?  By right, the distributing site

Since I have boycotted BBS's for some time, I have no proposed
solution to this problem.  Unless I can find a well run BBS, I expect
I wil never login to one again.

>A good point.  Shareware >is< commercial software, no argument.  Authors
>who distribute such programs intend to make money from them, whether
>they have a 21-day licensing period or meekly ask for spare change
>somewhere in the back of the manual.  The decision on whether or not
>this kind of commercial software is suitable for Usenet is not mine to
>make, fortunately.  But the crack about being "a little bit pregnant"
>seems to apply if you're going to have ANY of it here, you know, which
>would include anything from Vern Buerg's LIST to PKZIP to PCWRITE.

So in my opinion, none of this software should be posted.  If the
author wants to make money, do it on a commercial medium like real
software houses do.  If ASP is that good, then ASP should provide
advertising etc. to push some software.  I would have no objection if
a newsgroup was created for shareware announcments
(comp.announce.share). The articles could include a location to obtain
the software and what it does and the requested price.  This will
also let ASP and members know who is obtaining the software.  The
concept of "try it before you pay for it" is good I just want to see
it kept were commercial software belongs and out of the way of
"freeware".

If I have stepped on any consciensious ASP member's toes that are NOT
the problem, I apologize.  But from my point of view, I didn't know
there were any good ones.  You guys need to police shareware better.
Maybe lobby for some legislation to make it a crime when someone
claims to be shareware (not following the rules) but is in fact just a
rip off artist.

Art Dederick
...!hplabs!felix!art