Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware Message-ID: <-W=30Hxds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 11 Jan 90 21:57:53 GMT References: <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> <17608@rpp386.cactus.org> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 > The owner of the site didn't have the > option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the > issue. Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple. OK, that's fine. I wasn't addressing the case of Brad's offering (which, as Jef notes, you are under no obligation to pay twice for). I was responding to what I perceived as an overall attack on the concept of shareware in general, whether it be distributed on Usenet or not; guiltware or not; etc... > Ultimately the value of a piece of software is the number of > dollars someone is willing to pay for it. Succinct and to the point. > If shareware authors > aren't receiving money for their programs it only means one > thing. The software isn't worth a dime. And I'd prefer they > didn't cost me money by posting it and begging for money. As a shareware author who *is* recieving money for his programs, I'm at a loss to understand the point you're making here. It's too early to reach a verdict on Brad's program. Maybe he'll be able to retire on the contributions... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'