[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[Susan Bugher]

Advertisement requires the *purpose* to 'promote' something. This is not
the case with simple introduction lines in report files which state only
the software used to create the report. To the contrary: This is a useful
information. (And common praxis, above all...)

I agree.

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:

1. Software that displays promotional information for any product or
service during their designated usage, respectively on a output
product.
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.

FWIW - three types of advertising are defined in the Ware Glossary.

The first is advertising other's products to the program user.

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

The second is advertising your own products to the program user.

Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the software.
You must press a button to get past the nag screen. (Other
self-advertising aimed at the program user is not defined as Nagware.)

The third type is advertising that is directed toward the recipient or
viewer of a product produced by the program.

2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

IOW - the product that the program produces is blemished: It has a brand
name, a logo etc. etc.



Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

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.

I think you're expanding the definition far beyond it's intended scope.

The Ware Glossary's Adware 2. definition is about advertising that is
directed toward the recipient or viewer of a finished "end product"
produced by the program. It's not about such things as help files etc.
etc. that are viewed by the program user.

Adware
2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

Susan

 

[omega]

omega wrote:

"B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson" <[email protected]>:

[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.

I think you're expanding the definition far beyond it's intended scope.

To be frank, I think you neglected to read the full post.

The Ware Glossary's Adware 2. definition is about advertising that is
directed toward the recipient or viewer of a finished "end product"
produced by the program. It's not about such things as help files etc.
etc. that are viewed by the program user.

That is why type 3, re Help File system, it is grouped above into Not
Adware.

And re type 2, it deals with, for example the system utilities we use,
including file listers, which put their names into our output reports.

 

[Susan Bugher]

To be frank, I think you neglected to read the full post.

I read it. I replied to BeAr's post before I replied to yours. I think
you are headed down the wrong road. I suggest you read the previous Ware
Glossary Theads.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...=109i4ug277mok74%40corp.supernews.com&rnum=15

Subject: [PL] Ware Glossary - Annual Review
Date: 2004-04-26 22:43:11 PST


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...ScnS2fBouzzkujRTvU3Q%40brightview.com&rnum=38

Subject: Pricelessware Info Page
Date: 2003-05-20 16:32:02 PST

Susan

 

[omega]

I read it. I replied to BeAr's post before I replied to yours. I think
you are headed down the wrong road. I suggest you read the previous Ware
Glossary Theads.

You know well that I've read those discussions. Why sink to a Google flame?

Subject: Pricelessware Info Page
Date: 2003-05-20 16:32:02 PST

Yes, I remember. When John C questioned why you were duplicating his efforts.
It was an okay discussion. Lots about liteware, messy subject, but it can do
good to talk about that periodically. Although not in the middle of PL. The
votes have died, did you notice?

Subject: [PL] Ware Glossary - Annual Review
Date: 2004-04-26 22:43:11 PST

Brief, nothing much happened. You posted your glossaries. No debates. A couple
of posts regarding different types of nag screens.

So then, how specifically, how does that Google stuff fit into your repeated
statement that "AFAIK Directory Lister is Adware" and your announcement that
you will remove it from PL or label it adware?

 

[Mike Andrade]

You know well that I've read those discussions. Why sink to a
Google flame?

Keep at it. Perhaps you will learn too.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

FWIW - three types of advertising are defined in the Ware Glossary.

Rest assured that I read (and hopefully understood) these definitions.

The first is advertising other's products to the program user.

[current part 1 of Adware definition snipped]

I didn't distinguish between advertising for other products/services and
self-promotion, *on purpose*. (In my point 1.) Take InfoRapid 'Search &
Replace' as an example. The constant reminder of a full version for
business users and the link to their homepage qualifies the program as
Adware, in my eyes. It is no Nagware, because you don't have to dismiss
an additional popup screen. You could argument that you see this message
only in the display of the search results. So this would fire up point 2
of the *current* Adware definition. But with consecutive searches you
see this message permanently. - It gets part of the user interface.

IMHO, there is no difference between this message and a 'please visit
our sponsors' link...

The second is advertising your own products to the program user.

[current Nagware definition snipped]

No. Nagware - as it was originally meant with this term - is *not*
a *ware type which can be distinguished from Adware by the aims.
(Self-promotion or advertising other products/services.)

The essence of Nagware is the presence of annoying message popups,
startup/shutdown delays, or similar methods which hinder the normal
interaction with the program. (For what purpose ever.) - Seems we
have to readjust the Nagware definition, too. ;-)

The third type is advertising that is directed toward the recipient or
viewer of a product produced by the program.

[current part 2 of Adware definition snipped]

Yes. I simply added this to my first part of the Adware definition,
as there are often transitions between appearance inside the user
interface and the output. (As you can see with the InfoRapid software
I mentioned.) Instead, I snipped the samples off the current definition,
because I regard them more confusing than helpful. They show only a
*very* selected part of possible outputs.

With very different kinds of output arise questions perforce, whether
the software is Adware or not. We see this now with the discussion of
Directory Lister. As one can not provide a conclusive list of 'bad'
output, it is better to provide hints about general cases which *might*
be Adware by the wording of the definition, but in fact are not.

I tried to do this with part 2 and 3 with my suggestion. Karen flagged
both paragraphs a bit clearer. Thanks for this, Karen! Rereading my
text, it seemed pretty needed... ;-)

Just another note: My point 3 doesn't only address the appearance in
external help files! It also pertains to About boxes, special link
pages to the homepage of the author(s), or (not at last) to carefully
flagged links to help pages, user forums, mail addresses, and so on.
The latter might even appear directly as a button or such on the user
interface, especially within form-based programs.

Hope this clarifies my thoughts a bit... ;-)

BeAr

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

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?

A program could aggressively promote a free service, for instance. That
would fall on the Adware side of the line, too. IMHO. ;-)

BeAr

 

[Dewey Edwards]

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

Won't hear too many within an 100+ thread about "adware".

 

[Jaxxim]

Comments please. Which subcategory is best for Thunderbird?

Mail & News Client sounds wholly appropriate to me.

 

[Susan Bugher]

You know well that I've read those discussions. Why sink to a Google flame?

You didn't post in those threads. I did not know you had read them. It
was not a flame.

Yes, I remember. When John C questioned why you were duplicating his efforts.
It was an okay discussion. Lots about liteware, messy subject, but it can do
good to talk about that periodically.

Liteware, Crippleware and a reality check. The proposed definition of
Crippleware was based on the FAQ.

Dick Hazeleger (in post 139 in the thread) provided the reality check.
When the criteria in the Crippleware definition was *applied* there were
"Crippleware" programs on the Pricelessware List.

Subject: [PL] Ware Glossary - Annual Review
Date: 2004-04-26 22:43:11 PST

Brief, nothing much happened. You posted your glossaries. No debates. A couple
of posts regarding different types of nag screens.

A discussion of why we do not define splash screens as Nagware - there
is too much variation in their behavior. For many people this is a gray
area - some splash screens are acceptable - others are not. (We have a
number of programs with splash screens on PL2004.)

ISTM that the Adware description should be simple too. IOW - if there
are gray areas don't try to define them - leave them out of the description.

So then, how specifically, how does that Google stuff fit into your repeated
statement that "AFAIK Directory Lister is Adware" and your announcement that
you will remove it from PL or label it adware?

I asked if the group wished to remove Directory Lister. The answer seems
to be no. I will label Directory Lister accurately.

The Crippleware - Liteware discussion mentioned above is a case in
point. A specific definition in the FAQ - posts saying that Crippleware
(as defined in the FAQ) was not allowed on the Pricelessware List -
programs on the Pricelessware List that were Crippleware by the FAQ
definition.

ISTM we should say what we mean and mean what we say. ISTM anything less
is empty rhetoric and pious posturing.

If we say "There are NO Adware programs in the Pricelessware List." ISTM
we should mean there are no programs that meet the *acf* definition of
Adware.

Unacceptable ware types are identified by the group. If the group says
that a PL nomination is Freeware or Liteware or whateverware ISTM that
should mean it meets the *acf* definition of that ware.

ISTM we need a reality check. ISTM we need to ask ourselves if the ware
definitions are too strict and/or the procedures for identifying wares
are too loose.

Susan

 

[stonecypher]

I agree - Tbird is a Mail & News Client.

* Posted via http://www.sixfiles.com/forum

 

[Susan Bugher]

I agree - Tbird is a Mail & News Client.

* Posted via http://www.sixfiles.com/forum

Everybody seems to be in agreement. Thanks for your help. I'll make the
change.

Susan

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Is a name in the User-Agent field an advertisement?

Adware:
1. software that displays advertising for other products and/or
services (often downloaded from the internet by the software).
2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos,
web pages, PDF files etc.).

I dunno if this helps, but in case this discussion can use it as a
point of reference to help decide about Directory Lister and others,
Ill post it.

IMO the current USEFOR drafts are the best source of info about
headers.

From
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-01.txt>,
which is meant to become the standard,

3.2.12 User-Agent

The User-Agent header contains information about the user agent
(typically a newsreader) generating the article for statistical
purposes and tracing of standards violations to specific software
needing correction. Although not one of the mandatory headers,
posting agents SHOULD normally include it. It is also intended
that this header be suitable for use in Email.

IMO, allowing the user the option of undoing things that SHOULD be
done is not particularly desirable when it comes to such things as
Usenet posts, which are broadcast.

From
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-00.txt>,
intended to be a guide of current usage and best practices,

3.1.1.10. User-Agent

Comments in User-Agent-headers should be restricted to
information regarding the product named to their left, such as
its full name or platform information, and should be concise. Use
as an advertising medium (in the mundane sense) is discouraged.

So, by all means, avoid mundane advertising.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Hi PuppyKatt,

SOS's web site is his own. pricelesswarehome.org is an ACF
newsgroup site. I have an obligation to ask for direction from the
group. I've done that. I also have the same obligations as SOS. If
there is no group consensus I will make the decision myself.

In absence of concensus to remove an app that was duly voted on, I
think it would be a mistake for you to change the list itself on your
site. But IMO the PL is just a list of apps, independent of categories
or program descriptions or any other wordage. So, I think you are
perfectly entitled to describe what Directory Lister adds to its
output. in the program description or notes. I'd be hesitant to call
it advertising unless there's concensus here about whether it's just
information or it's advertising.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Won't hear too many within an 100+ thread about "adware".

Yeah. Maybe best to sort out remaining categorization issues in the
post-vote discussion, with a new thread for them.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Trillian is Nagware. Trillian is on the Pricelessware List. ACF
voters said that a Nagware program that does not nag at all in the
first 1000 hours of use is significantly different from typical
Nagware programs. Trillian is a special case.

I'm not sure we can say why voters decided Trillian was ok for the
2004 PL. Maybe you are right that they saw it as nagware but
thought the nature of the nags made them a negligible. Or
maybe they just didn't believe that there ever were any nags.
AFAICR, no one but me ever posted confirming that there were nags,
and there were a lot of responses saying things like "I never see
nag screens". No one explicitly called me a liar, but it's possible
I just wasn't believed.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Just a reminder that today is the last day to vote. The schedule is here:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2005/2005PL-Procedures.php

Susan

 

[omega]

I dunno if this helps, but in case this discussion can use it as a
point of reference to help decide about Directory Lister and others,
Ill post it.

IMO the current USEFOR drafts are the best source of info about
headers.

[....]

I think my point in the question has been missed a couple of times. I was
attempting to find from Susan what characteristic DirLister's had in putting
its name in output that made her label it adware -- compared amongst the
vast number of other cases of software writing their name in output. As
written in a sub-thread from the question:

"Mere appearance of product name in some place in output does not
automatically mean that such software is Adware instead of freeware.

3.1.1.10. User-Agent

Comments in User-Agent-headers should be restricted to
information regarding the product named to their left, such as
its full name or platform information, and should be concise. Use
as an advertising medium (in the mundane sense) is discouraged.

So, by all means, avoid mundane advertising.

Popcorn, and a few other mail/news clients, they add in their URL to the headers.
I consider that less-than-desirable, and I consider it a few drops short away
from purest possible freeware. However, in my view, they do not belong in the
Adware box....

Susan keeps repeating her declaration that Directory Lister is Adware. I don't
know if she would or would not call it such if it only did the csv and txt outputs;
its product name is written into the is written into the text file lists. I make
the guess, although do not know definitely, that she more specifically objects
to the hyperlink to the author's homepage for product name, which is written into
the html output of the file lists.

Right within the same family of utils, directory listers which support html output,
there are others which also write their name with link to their homepage.

One is from the freeware author Mihov:

<H4>Index created with <A HREF="http://www.mihov.com/eng/im.html">Mihov Index Maker</A> version 1.50.</H4>

Another (this one is on PL list) is from the freeware author Berkes:

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

If Directory Lister is to be labeled Adware, then whateve criteria it is that
has been used, it needs to apply throughout the whole PL.

More importantly:

There should first be consensus reached from the newsrgoup as to whether they want
the ADWARE label used with the Pricelessware List.

Secondly, I don't think Susan should alone declare programs Adware. I think that
flagged programs should be discussed, and voted on, prior to any steps being taken.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

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.

I completely agree.