Some of us do care. I certainly didn't know what it did until
reading this thread.
Well because you don't use the software that's why you 'care'.
I agree completely. But that has no bearing on whether or not
nagware should be on the PL. When Trillian was nagware, I used and
liked it, but because it was nagware, I was against it being on the
PL. There's a lot of software that people use and like which
doesn't belong on the PL.
Q, tell me, if you find Trillian( which was nagware) useful, why isn't it
pricelessware in your opinion?
Doesn't that presuppose you have some fixed definitional idea about what
pricelessware is?
What "belongs on PL"? Can you point to me some standard unchanging
definition of PL , except the surface meaning?
It's funny how you ask people to vote on what types of ware is allowed on
PL, so does the definition of PL change year after year? Are you as an
indidvual bound by what the group decides is pricelessware?
If a change occur, do these changes have retrospective effect?
The point is since we are voting on ware types acceptable to PL, people
who like and trust Antivir, could easily start voting nagware in the next
time.
Heck they could even do it for adware, or change the definition...
I don't see why anyone would avoid calling it nagware just because
s/he likes and uses it, but perhaps that is indeed what is
happening.
Definitely it is happening. People who say they didn't see nagware until
recently (most probably blocked using various methods the v7 one was
better against these methods).
IMO, all liteware is crippleware. I use and like some of that too.
And yet you are overruled by the 'group' who was desperate for some
loophole because some software was just too useful and willing to put up
with the lack of certain features. That's right the word is "useful".
Too bad.
I agree that calling it liteware is a bit weird, though that term
has been used by the folks marketing it for a long time. But it's
not as weird as refusing to call apps with popup nags nagware.
We are playing definitional games here Q, and worse yet, the definitions
of nagware in pricelessware make it trival to dance around if necessary.
Pretty soon we will need lawyers to draft this stuff.
Care to tell me why Hoverdesk isn't nagware *by definition of PL* ?
The group's definitions have been built into the PL procedures for
some time now. You really think they should be taken out of it?
I'm proposing a better way to 'play game'.
Voting on ware types is too abstract. A lot of software don't fall into
them anyway. And there's an extra step trying to pigeonhole stuff into
liteware/crippleware/registerware, then checking to see if it is allowed
on PL.
Let's cut out the middleman, and just vote on properties that are
disallowed.
We will still be playing the game, but much more efficiently.
Currently we do this.
A : XYZ is <disallowed ware type>
B : No it isn't because if you check the rules.....
A : Oh right , it isn't because it doesn't fit the definition, but it
sure *feels* like <disallowed ware type> to me but okay it's not by
definition of PL 2006.
I hope people are voting on ware types based by reading the definitions,
not just having their own ideas about what it is. And thinking "nagware
sounds negative, so I'm voting no, then turning around and voting for
Antivir."
I suspect this is the case in fact at least the way you acted with
Hoverdesk seems to show some evidence of that.
Not everyone agrees about the types you mention. When Opera was
adware, there were folks who liked and used it. Quite a few of them
wanted it on the PL, but it was always excluded because the group's
concensus was that adware shouldn't be on the PL.
Exactly my point. There was support for Opera, which was useful enough to
get people wanting to nominate it, but for most part they failed because
resistance was too great, thanks to the word "Adware".
Never in the history of PL, have we ever had anything tagged as adware,
that is/was the kiss of death no matter how popular though arguably some
accepted entries evaded it narrowly by playing language games.
Nagware however apparantly isn't in that situation ,how could it, despite
it being tagged as so in the past, People just looked the other way.
This shows the loathing for adware (much stronger nowadays) will always
remain, so I don't forsee JC's doomsday scenario of adware becoming
accepted.
If adware had
been allowed on the PL, they could easily have mustered enough votes
for Opera.
I doubt it. The specter of "adware" alone, would have lead to far more
objections then in this thread.
The current situation with nagware is similar, but
despite the group's concensus against putting nagware on the PL,
it's been voted onto the list.
The 'group's concern' didn't seem to make a difference in all the years
Antivir and other nagware has being included.
All the maintainers who tagged "nagware" on their lists who by definition
are the ultimate stickers and arbiters of rules, didn't care either.
So tell me again "the group" is very concerned.
