Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!utoday!greenber From: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <1241@utoday.UUCP> Date: 13 Feb 90 02:46:39 GMT References: <1201@utoday.UUCP> <13946@s.ms.uky.edu> <1212@utoday.UUCP> <1990Feb8.140220.6168@pegasus.uucp> <1233@utoday.UUCP> <10807@zodiac.ADS.COM> <14108@s.ms.uky.edu> <1237@utoday.UUCP> <6566@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY Lines: 64 In article <6566@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bjones@uhccux.UUCP (Brad Jones) writes: > >Could you help me with this? Are unethical people poor, or are poor >people unethical? An interesting concept in either case. I bet >I could really generate flames by guessing which political party you >belong to... Libertarian, if you must know. Everyone I know who would stand atop a soapbox and proclaim how they would use another's intellectual property with little or no regard to the owner's wishes is not in a position to have very deep pockets. That's just what I've experienced to date. No commentary is implied. >.... The most desirable programs delivered over the Usenet >are the ones that include source code and are free to use and "hack >on". This, to me, represents the unified creative spirit that should >typify the Usenet. Otherwise the whole thing is just a glorified >bulletin board (where I think shareware rightfully belongs). No complaint from me on this: I agree. The business side of me understands why Ido not distribute the source code on my stuff -- and my own stuff (anti- virus software) probably should *not* be distributed with the source, just to play things safe. But I've learned a great deal over the years looking at the source out there. > >2) Within the group of shareware programs that I saw, there were two >main types: the ones where the bulk of the programing effort had gone >into solid, useful, efficient code; and the ones where a substantial >effort had gone into creating screenfuls of (often) brightly-colored, >blinking messages reminding the user to send money. I know that these >types are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the correlation was too >great to be coincidence. The documentation also generally reflects the >author's bias. Generally, the more flashy the request for money, the less worthwhile the code: at least that's been my experience. Naturally, my request for registration is not flashy at all! :-) > >3) A good, solid, bug-free piece of shareware is probably worth $10 - >$20. I say this not to belittle the efforts of the individual >programmers, but because that's what seems to be fair in today's >competitive marketplace. Actually, it's worth whatever the market pays for it. Almost by definition in the shareware arena. The folks making the most money in shareware seem to offer products in the $75 - $99 range. Those are the really rich guys. Those, like me, who don;t think ahead end up supporting a product that brings in only $10 a head! >...[variety of complaints about "bad" shareware]... >response is... del *.*. And, hey, that doesn't infringe *anyone's* >copyright (now matter how poorly based in actual law). That's the whole point: if you don't like it, don't use it. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"