[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[jo]

I expect there will be a post about the Spyware programs on the PL
tomorrow.

*evil lurk*

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan,
I've just noticed that Mozilla Thunderbird is listed in the Email Client
subcategory, when it should be on the Mail & News Client subcategory.
Its news capabilities are certainly limited, but enough for me to post
this message.

Hi majales,

Thunderbird has received quite a few votes. I'd like to make sure the
change is acceptable to others.

Comments please. Which subcategory is best for Thunderbird?

Susan

 

[omega]

This newsgroup was told Directory Lister is Adware.
This newsgroup was told ePrompter is Adware.

Jo's posts to which you refer, which arose in the "Greeting Card" threads,
their major point, it was about the inevitability of grey areas. It makes
for a strange irony to then see a reaction to those posts that are like
an emergency call for marshal law.

My *conclusion* was that this should be discussed and a course of action
should be agreed upon by newsgroup participants.

My *conclusion* was that an immediate decision is needed in regard to
Directory Lister since that app is on the present Pricelessware List.

Why immediate? Why the sudden urgency, all of a sudden, on the one
software?

ePrompter's outgoing advertisements, and its problematic EULA, that's
been brought for a long time here. Wasn't it you who put ePrompter on
the Ware ballot last year?

There are a fair number of other PL programs that posters have pointed
out to fall short of pure freeware status. For instance, I've brought
up PowerDesk. Not just the startup and closing ad for the promo version,
but there is also an ad, with clickable URL to the commercial site for
the pay product, lodged in its main interface. How to address such
situations? The way that works best. By discussing any flagged apps,
calling for votes...

AFAIK Directory Lister is Adware.

As far as you know? What does that mean? A product name in an output
file? Is that what you label an "advertisement"? Or is it the product
name is hotlinked to the author's freeware homepage? Is that how you
define you define Adware?

You're going to have to get out the big axe, and whack off a good number
of PL programs, if it is strictly the product name showing up somewhere,
where you to then automatically label it Adware.

I have an obligation to visitors to the Pricelessware site. IMO I must

You always before had me believe that your sense of obligation was first
to the newsgroup. As would be best, considering that the Pricelessware List
is supposed to represent our opinions in ACF.

either inform them that Directory Lister is Adware or remove Directory
Lister or remove the statement that says "There are NO
Adware/Spyware programs in the Pricelessware List."

This feels capricious to me. Why move so suddenly, and right in the
middle of the voting process?

If you're going to up and whack Directory Lister that way, or worse,
scar it with the Adware label, then whatever that criterion of yours
is, you should get prepared to apply it throughout the whole list.

I take my obligations pretty seriously.

Very seriously. And you apply formidable work.

Just here, you really are making me a bit nervous. What I see could
lead to very bad consequence for the PL. If you're going to suddenly
start whacking apps, just like that; or smearing them red with the
scarlett letter, based on a whisper. And a whim.

 

[omega]

I will label it Adware.

There has been absolutely NO CONSENSUS for your to start slapping ADWARE
on any PL programs.

Not Directory Lister or any other.

 

[omega]

No. A hint regarding the link inside the *.html output (within the program
description) will suffice.

This sounds like a good idea. It's something I'd want to know about in a
program description. I wasn't even conscious of it myself about Directory
Lister came up in this thread. I hadn't noticed, esp as have never taken
much more than test glances of it for html output, and didn't find it too
interesting for that, compared to others. My use of it has to been mostly
for csv records of my sysdir, to take advantage of the fact that it has the
ability to list fields of file versions and CRCs.

Another similar utility on the PL, Berkes' Dir2html, it also writes its
homepage link into the html output.

<p>Created by <a href="http://www.pc-tools.net/">DIR2HTML 1.1.0</a></p>

When browsing a list of these utils, it'd be useful to see a note on that
in the description. Descriptions to compare against one like Nitzsche's
Dirhtml, which offers complete customization, for the html output, right
at the template level.

 

[omega]

I will label it Adware.

Start an official discussion. Get the consensus of the newsgroup, whether
they want you to put Adware label on PL programs.

If the newsgroup accepts using the Adware label, then get the criteria
sufficiently worked out.

From there, ask for input for programs that people feel might qualify.

Let that program list then be discussed. Then voted on.

At that point, you will have consensus of group to tack Adware label on
whichever programs. And it would not be an arbitrary and capricious act.

Oh, and as to this PL2005 voting thing we were supposed to be in the middle
of? You got my attention. This issue here is now far more important to me.

One important note:

Yes, of course, you can ignore every bit of the above. It's your work,
voluntary, and the website is in your control. That's up to you, in the
end.

 

[jo]

This feels capricious to me. Why move so suddenly, and right in the
middle of the voting process?

This whole post of yours feels to me like a nicely argued summary of the
situation.
I reckon the whole business should be left alone until a more
appropriate/relaxed time.

Sufficient unto the day... etc.

 

[omega]

About your removal of "There are NO Adware/Spyware programs in the
Pricelessware List.", I think you could write "There are NO Spyware
programs in the Pricelessware List." for these few days, until we'll reach a
consensus.

That is a excellent resolution.

The old slogan was based on easy and immediate recognition of the species
of obvious, ugly adware creatures. If we are now at a spot where we have
a lot of confusion, and are awaiting some UBER-definition that reigns in
an alter-realm beyond human interpretations...then simplest to unstaple
the "no adware" sign from the door, for a while, until we can get things
worked out more satisfactorily.

 

[omega]

I reckon the whole business should be left alone until a more
appropriate/relaxed time.

First Susan, and now same for me, we are starting to get very intense.

I agree that this is the wrong timing.

It's just that I was reading that actions were poised to swing in
immediately. The axe raised. Threats to suddenly remove programs.

And came the significantly major move to tack Adware labels within the
PL list, and to target random programs for Adware label without first
reaching any agreement.

So I'd rather see everything interrupted, for a full-out mega discussion,
over having such dramatic change take place quietly.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

First Susan, and now same for me, we are starting to get very intense.

I agree that this is the wrong timing.

It's just that I was reading that actions were poised to swing in
immediately. The axe raised. Threats to suddenly remove programs.

And came the significantly major move to tack Adware labels within the
PL list, and to target random programs for Adware label without first
reaching any agreement.

So I'd rather see everything interrupted, for a full-out mega discussion,
over having such dramatic change take place quietly.

How about taking it to discussion and ware ballot? That need not
interrupt everything else. I agree that it would be a very
significant change that must not go ahead without consensus.

 

[BarryTone]

Thunderbird has received quite a few votes. I'd like to make sure the
change is acceptable to others.

Comments please. Which subcategory is best for Thunderbird?

I use it only for news and not email. IMO, it belongs under Mail & News
Client. It's now got RSS too.

 

[omega]

Just what I was thinking. The problem is of course there will be
grades and shades of "logoware", some more "in your face" than others,
so much that no matter if a Logo/URL only promotes a freeware site,
many will simply label them "adware" or "nagware" and thus not expect
to find them listed on the Pricelessware site. I do understand Susan's
wish for a clear cut either/or definition to simplify things, but in
this case maybe there is none to be found, at least not yet, and as
thus the current calls for some discretional power when applied.

It's once we have a final PL2005 list before us which would've made for
the better timing to review the behavior of various flagged programs.
Spot out any common denominators in undesirable behaviors amongst those.
Consider the flagged programs collectively, and individually. Discuss
then how to proceed.

(Most definitions and rules do, we simply like to think of them as "clear
cut", say like if there is no one arguing otherwise and/or the outcome
of our application does not cause other "interuptions/disturbances"
for us).

True, although you're getting into deeper empirical philosophy there.

Another item that comes to mind is how law works. For instance, in my gov,
the matter of constitutional law. We have a rather short document, our
constitution, and with it, a relatively short list of amendments. But
then from there: the great historical library of books and records and
documents, dealing with interprations, it would fill more buildings than
I can envision. And for some of the very crucial case interpretations,
it has often required incredible concentration from profound intelligences,
our court justices. The starting documents they work with, those are the
foundation there, but the interpretive process, that is something that
never ends...

IOW, merely having a doc with words somewhere, that does not make for
a machine, where everything is automatically set into a prefit slot.

 

[jo]

IOW, merely having a doc with words somewhere, that does not make for
a machine, where everything is automatically set into a prefit slot.

There will always be grey areas...?

 

[omega]

There will always be grey areas...?

Yep, and thing is, those very words came to me just the other day, can't
remember where... <g>

 

[Gord McFee]

In

That is a excellent resolution.

The old slogan was based on easy and immediate recognition of the
species of obvious, ugly adware creatures. If we are now at a spot
where we have a lot of confusion, and are awaiting some
UBER-definition that reigns in an alter-realm beyond human
interpretations...then simplest to unstaple the "no adware" sign from
the door, for a while, until we can get things worked out more
satisfactorily.

I agree. Perhaps the problem is that we have been too academic in some
of the definitions. Since I have contributed absolutely nothing, I am
not claiming any moral high ground. But let me try to start to make
amends.

To go back to basics, would not the point about adware be that it tries
to induce the user to buy something, i.e., in the sense of an
advertisement? So, if a program runs ads that try to sell something,
they are adware and should not be included in the definition of
freeware. But if they merely identify themselves, then that should be
OK. Am I missing something?

 

[jo]

Yep, and thing is, those very words came to me just the other day, can't
remember where...

One of the johnny-come-lately scandinavian trolls/flamers perhaps?

 

[omega]

One of the johnny-come-lately scandinavian trolls/flamers perhaps?

I might fit that slot (mod it to jane-come-lately). Except that I found
via Google (vanity search on old email address) that I'd first posted here
in 1999. It was in an OT thread. A reply about some web service or
something. Discussion traffic was somewhat barren at that time, so the
topic was carried out without flames on it being OT. The legit form of ACF,
its proper newgroup'ing, it had just begun that year, without too many
posters. Not to say that boredom in the earlier years didn't make for a
trend of flaming, starting from way back. As usual, the nature of netnews...

 

[omega]

To go back to basics, would not the point about adware be that it tries
to induce the user to buy something, i.e., in the sense of an
advertisement? So, if a program runs ads that try to sell something,
they are adware and should not be included in the definition of
freeware. But if they merely identify themselves, then that should be
OK. Am I missing something?

You make very important distinctions.

When we assess programs for adware characteristics, we very much need to
be alert on what is in our minds when we say advertisement. There is the
selling of products and services, at the serious adware end of the spectrum.
Then there is the program merely putting its own name (+ maybe its homepage)
into output somewhere, at the milder end of the spectrum. I see it as the
wrong step to try to unilaterally clump these all together into the same box.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I think adware are programs which show ads for other products the the
program itself.

Yup. That's part 1.

"1. software that displays advertising for other products and/or
services (often downloaded from the internet by the software)."

If the program shows ads or something similar for itself, or for a pay
version of the same program, it is better labeled as nagware.

and it is - *if* it has a nag screen.

"has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the software. You must
press a button to get past the nag screen."

Headers in mail-news progs saying what program was used to produce the
message are neither adware nor nagware, it is standard practice to add
such headers. The same goes for html editors.
There are partly technical reasons for this, it makes it easier to find
out what programs disturb the internet in some way.

I agree - these are not advertisements or nags.

Susan

 

[omega]

ISTM, the current definition of Adware leaves too much room to include
programs which should not be blemished. Thinking about it: I myself
distinguish Adware from non-Adware by these rules:
[Adware]
1. Software that displays promotional information for any product or
service during their designated usage, respectively on a output
product.

[Not Adware]

2. The inclusion of self-references for the sole purpose to identify
the source of the publicized information is permitted.

3. Unobtrusive (self-)promotion is permitted within the help system.

A good example of type 3, it is EditPad Lite. I don't recall that program
having anything in the interface that would make it distinguishable from
any pure freeware. It is strictly the external CHM file, where they have
said: If you want to read this, then here you will also read about all the
great features in our Pro version.

Regarding type 2, that's the good starting reference. From there, we could
any discuss flagged programs individually, to review their self-reference
in the output. Motive or purpose. Obtrusiveness. If it's a matter of
something that borders more towards the annoying instead, and away from
the useful, then it's a good idea to mention the behavior in the program
description.