Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!neubauer
From: neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <6359@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 89 14:54:13 GMT
References: <89058@felix.UUCP>
Reply-To: neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 61

In article <89058@felix.UUCP> art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) writes:
>>In article <13415@steinmetz.ge.com> Wm. E. Davidsen Jr writes:
>>We don't carry binaries to be nice, we do it because the benefit of
>
>Well here comp.binaries.ibm.* is only being carried because management
>IS being nice.  This has been the same at other places I have worked.
>
>Unless you are a PC house and use nothing but PC's, c.b.i.p is not much
>useful to you.

(actually, there is likely to be some value if you use even SOME pc's, but
 how much value depends on the situation of your organization)

>unscrupulous people let this shareware concept take advantage of the
>net and my management get wind of it.  Cutting off netnews has already
>been threaten once and I know this would pretty much kill it for us.

I certainly do not want to give the impression that I don't approve of
people (or even pseudo-people like companies) being nice.  I most definitely
do.  I hope, though that if a netnews crunch comes to your company, that
management does realize that they are under no obligation to carry it on an
all or nothing basis.  You can easily simply refuse c.b.i.p while continuing
to carry other netnews.

I hope (for many people's sake) that we do not have to worry about that.  I
have not spoken to Rahul Dhesi about this subject, but it appears from his
postings that he may also be worried about what will happen to the
distribution of c.b.i.p if it becomes blatantly commercial.  While there may
(or may not) be sufficient benefit to the net.world.as.a.whole from carrying
shareware, we have to remain aware that the net is not a uniform entity.
Some sites (like Bill's) may regard shareware distribution on the net to be
a net service (pun intended) to them and be more than happy to get it.
Other sites (possibly, though not obviously, including Art's) may be run by
people who are sufficiently distraught by the thought that someone (other
than them) may gain some advantage from the net that they are unwilling to
tolerate whatever they or their employees may gain from participation.  Most
probably fall somewhere in between.  Then there are the governmental sites
(including universities).  Some or all of these sites may have little or no
authority to decide how much commercial software is transmitted to or
through them.  For some of these sites ANY commercial transmissions may be
enough to jeopardize their participation.  Someone (sorry, I forgot your
name) suggested that "shareware" might be added to the distribution line to
determine where it might go without requiring major changes to the net
software.  

Whatever is done, my opinion is that we must first and foremost protect the
structure of the net.  If we allow impermissible types of postings, we may
lose the net entirely, which would be far worse than losing convenient
access to shareware.  The question to the posters who have advocated that
postings of binaries be determined solely on utility with no concern for
the question of how commercial is shareware, is what is the extent of danger
to the net from posting dubious binaries?  The utility of such software must
be reduced by the very real risk that at least this newsgroup and possibly
all netnews would be curtailed at some sites.

I do not know the answer to this question either, but I am worried.


-- 
Paul Neubauer         neubauer@bsu-cs.bsu.edu        neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
                      <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!neubauer