[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[Susan Bugher]

repost (apolgies if it's a duplication)

The change occurred in April when we revised the Ware Glossary. The
effect of the revision has become apparent now. Removing the new part of
the Adware definition would resolve the present difficulty.

The re-revised definition would be:

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

I'm in favor of that course of action. Comments?

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yes, to follow on your metaphor, we need to landscape, and so far as
the definition of adware is concerned, if it places us in a situation
where we're describing software as adware where there's no inducement
to buy, then it's too late for pick and shovel. We need a bulldozer
or possibly a tactical thermonuclear device.

I wonder if my earlier reply got lost.

I suggested removing part 2 of the definition. That's the new part and
that's where the problem lies.

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.).


Susan

 

[REM]

The change occurred in April when we revised the Ware Glossary. The
effect of the revision has become apparent now. Removing the new part of
the Adware definition would resolve the present difficulty.

The re-revised definition would be:

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

I'm in favor of that course of action. Comments?

Sounds plenty reasonable.

It is amazing how authors have found so many ways and variations of
creating software that defy even the most general of labels.

If it is a freeware that ONLY advertises itself, I see nothing wrong
with that. It is freeware and that's the main thing. Making more
people aware of itself is cool.

I'm sure we all would rather that no software ever advertise anthing.

I'm sure that when identified, the best programs will be recommended
over programs that do have a hitch, such as "self-promoting" software.

We live in a real world though, and must face the realities of it
somehow. The self-promoting freeware might be setting itself up to go
commercial, or not. Only time will tell that. I'm not sure it is even
possible to list only the pure freeware. I know of many programs that
would make it, but there are so many others that lean over the line it
would be impossible for a large group of people to agree on everything
concerning categorizing each program. That is, we can probably agree
on what is probably, but never on what isn't.

In the end each of us determines the exactness of "freeware" in our
own way. Free Agent works wonderfully for my needs. I'm sure it could
work for others, if they select groups before it times out and, like
me, are not going to want other groups in the future. I still would
not recommend it as a freeware news reader to the general public
though. For me, it cost the time of a download and an install,
freeware, for my personal requirements, and it is the best darned
program out there for what I want to do.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

repost (apolgies if it's a duplication)

First thought: How about if we change "other" to "shareware/payware":

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

RE freeware that can bee seen as promoting it self or other freeware
via logo or signatur/url or otherwise(?) -> can be labeled "nagware"
*if* the group regard such items too intrusive in any particular case.
??

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[REM]

What if the other product is free?

Nice question!

I'd rather not have any advertising, especially for other programs.

Should whether or not the "ad" attempts to *sell* something play a role
in the definition?

Self-promotion and all out advertising are different. All out
advertising should not be in freeware.

 

[Susan Bugher]

In this case I am guessing few if any who favored the new
adware definition had this in mind.

I agree. I think we should remove the new language from the Adware
definition.


Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

RE freeware that can bee seen as promoting it self or other freeware
via logo or signatur/url or otherwise(?) -> can be labeled "nagware"
*if* the group regard such items too intrusive in any particular case.
??

Or maybe not "nagware" if we follow the current def. ? :

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

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:


First thought: How about if we change "other" to "shareware/payware":

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

"Other" = someone else's products. Showing advertising for your own
software to the program user does not make a program Adware.

I think we can improve the wording. ISTM we should fix the immediate
problem now and consider improvements later.

RE freeware that can bee seen as promoting it self or other freeware
via logo or signatur/url or otherwise(?) -> can be labeled "nagware"
*if* the group regard such items too intrusive in any particular case.
??

IMO if Nagware is *always* bad it's better not to deal with gray areas
in the definition. That's the approach we've used so far in the Nagware
definition.

Splash screens and most forms of self-promotion aimed at the program
user are not mentioned. The only thing that's mentioned is behavior that
newsgroup participants have defined as *always* objectionable.

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

Susan Bugher

 

[Susan Bugher]

Or maybe not "nagware" if we follow the current def. ? :

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

Right, it's *not* Nagware according to our present definition. Each
program's logo, splash sceen etc. etc. etc. is judged individually.

Susan

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I think we can improve the wording. ISTM we should fix the immediate
problem now and consider improvements later

Agree. Sometimes hard to resist adding "improvements",
Saving those for later.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Johansson]

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

That is only one type of nagware, there are many other types.
Time delays in start or exit, or in using some functions, popup boxes,
splash screens, etc..

I suggest this definition.

Nagware: Has some nagging feature which hinder the use of the program in
some way, and nags the user, to encourage users to pay for a version of
the program which does not have the nagging features.
The nagging can be very disturbing in some programs and very discreet in
other programs.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

I wonder if my earlier reply got lost.

No, no. It didn't get lost. I just tend to witter on a bit
sometimes.

I suggested removing part 2 of the definition. That's the new part and
that's where the problem lies.

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.).

Maybe. So far as part two of the definition is concerned, it's what
"advertisement" means that is the sticking-point, surely. If the
program adds "created by X" where X is a freeware program, then that's
only self-promotion, not advertisement, if advertisement is taken as
encouragement to buy something.

If, OTOH, the freeware program adds a tag that is intended as an
inducement to buy either a fuller version or something else, it's an
adware program, I'd say.

To my mind the heart of the matter isn't whether the message is
displayed on screen or on other output such as paper, it's what the
message says.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Sounds plenty reasonable.


It is amazing how authors have found so many ways and variations of
creating software that defy even the most general of labels.

I agree that there are a lot of things that are hard to categorize as
always good or always bad. Some splash screens can be turned off - you
never have to see them. Some splash screens are more obnoxious than
*any* nag screen ever thought of being. (I'm thinking of splash screens
that are displayed for ever-lengthening periods of time - the longer you
use the app the worse it gets.)

Some web pages and EULAs seem to be designed to confuse rather than
enlighten. . . . Is it Freeware or Trialware or ???

aaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!

In the end each of us determines the exactness of "freeware" in our
own way.

Yup. "Free enough for me" is the final criteria for an individual.

ISTM that the Pricelessware List is for apps that almost everyone thinks
are "free enough for me".

IMO our PL rules and ACF definitions need to be written with that as the
goal. IOW - not too strict - not too loose.

Susan

 

[Roger Johansson]

Another possible definition of Nagware:

Nagware is software which interrupts the user in his work and draws the
attention of the user to the fact that he is using a version of the
program which has not been paid. There are many ways to achieve this,
messages with delays, popup boxes you have to click to get rid of, splash
screens, information about the payware version shown in different
situations in the program, etc..

 

[Susan Bugher]

Real life has intruded. I will finish the vote tally and post the results.

After that I will not be able to participate in the newsgroup for a
period of at least several days, perhaps longer.


Susan

 

[John Fitzsimons]

In

What if the other product is free?

< snip >

Unlikely to happen. You could change things to ;

Adware: software that displays advertising for other (payware)
products and/or....

though.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On 11/7/2004 4:11 PM, Susan Bugher wrote:

You mean like, "Produced by xxxxx?" If so, then there are a lot of
Pricelessware apps that will have to be removed. I can't see what is
wrong with a piece of software promoting *itself*.

IF people see nothing wrong with that then maybe they need to be
marked "self promoting adware" ?

I don't know that I would want such programs on the PL list at all BUT
I would have less of a problem with them being recommended in the
newsgroup. As long as they didn't "phone home" and were correctly
labeled.

My preference however is of course "pure" freeware in both places.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:47:57 -0500, Susan Bugher

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

That would be my preference. You could also have a "Self promoting
adware" type BUT..... I wouldn't bother.

Regards, John.

 

[jo]

If it is a freeware that ONLY advertises itself, I see nothing wrong
with that. It is freeware and that's the main thing. Making more
people aware of itself is cool.

Hmmm... how about a screensaver app that cycles through a folder of
jpg's and every fifth image puts up its own saying 'created by whoever'?

 

[jo]

Yup. "Free enough for me" is the final criteria for an individual.

Don't make it proper 'freeware' though. ('criterion' btw)

ISTM that the Pricelessware List is for apps that almost everyone thinks
are "free enough for me".

I think that could be the thin end of a wedge that could let all sorts
of rubbish through in the longer term.
Opera, ICQ, recent FA builds should never be let through the net...

IMO our PL rules and ACF definitions need to be written with that as the
goal. IOW - not too strict - not too loose.

I go for strict definitions and then liberal interpretations where
needed.

Keeps life simple. Rigid rules are ok; rigid interpretation of rigid
rules is boring.