[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[Gord McFee]

In

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

That's a possibility. The problem is that they could just as accurately
be marked "self promoting freeware". The devil is always in the
details, thus I wonder if the definitions are not *too* precise.

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.

Fair enough. I am just stating my preferences and of course will go
along with the group consensus.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

Nice question!

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

I agree.

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

I agree again.

 

[Gord McFee]

In

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).

I like that.

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Omar=A9?=]

repost (apolgies if it's a duplication)



--
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
ACF FAQ: http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
ACF wiki: http://www.markcarter.me.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AcfWiki

I for one agree with this solution.
Peace Omar

 

[Dewey Edwards]

No, it would return us to pre April.

Not anyone's intention, but that definition makes every browser
adware.

I myself would prefer brainstorming what a program can or can't
promote, and *then* revise the definition.

My initial brainstorm is just categories, NO judgements (and I will
use "information" rather than "advertisement"):

Software that is designed to display information to the user of other
products for which the author is compensated.

Software that is designed to display information to the user of other
products which the author has written which are otherwise
unacceptable.

Software that is designed to display information to the user of other
products which the author has written.

Software that is designed to display information to a third party of
that or any other product.

Software that is designed to display information that is useful to the
user.

Software that is designed to display information which is expected by
accepted protocols.

Some of the above, I find acceptable, some I do not.

 

[Peggy]

As an aid to vote counting I've uploaded a text file. I'll upload
revisions as more ballots are counted.

The list is sorted by email addresses. An address *without* a program is
used to indicate a "vote" that was not counted - IOW - a *non-vote* or a
*duplicate* vote. See:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/ftp/PL2005VoteCount.txt

If your votes don't appear on the list in a reasonable length of time do
NOT *repost* your ballot. Post in *this* thread and I'll look for your
ballots on another server. TIA

Susan

Hi Susan
I have not seen my posted vote in this newsgroup. I posted it on the
05/11.
But I have a horrible feeling I may have accidently emailed it to you
directly, by mistake. I hope that it still will be counted.

Thanks

Regards

Peggy

(the other one)

 

[Peter Seiler]

Susan Bugher - 08.11.2004 01:12 :

Hi Susan,

when do the General Dicussion (and others like Ballot, Voting etc.) end?

 

[REM]

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'?

Haha, that would be pretty dirty. I don't think many would want such a
program. But, for someone who only cares about burnin, it might be
acceptable.

If every 100th image, and the other images were good and the program
solid, well, where exactly is the line?

It's not really advertising. It is pointing out who created the
program to people who use it.

The more pure the better is all I can offer as to what we recommend
here.

 

[REM]

Peggy <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Susan
I have not seen my posted vote in this newsgroup. I posted it on the
05/11.
But I have a horrible feeling I may have accidently emailed it to you
directly, by mistake. I hope that it still will be counted.

Peggy, can you repost the vote in the vote thread? It will be counted.

 

[Peggy]

Peggy, can you repost the vote in the vote thread? It will be counted.

Thanks REM I have done that. I hope that they are indeed counted but
if I have missed the balot, I know that it is my own fault.

Peggy

 

[omega]

Rigid rules are ok; rigid interpretation of rigid rules is boring.

I certainly value the principle of pursuing purity for the PL.

That value is unrelated to my dispute with the notion that a handful
of paragraphs of language can be assembled which should reign above
all human interpretation, my dispute with the notion that such a
construct can be mechanically used (how can language exist above human
interpretation?) to cut a hard line between varieties of "pure freeware"
and varieties of "impure" free software.

You know, think even of something that is not about paragraphs of language:
the massive, continual technical endeavor with definitions and heuristics
for virus and trojan recognition. Even in that realm, you still get misses,
and the false positives. If that whole body of endeavor has a degree of
inescapable fallibility -- then how possibly can one hold that a page
of glossaries could have overruling power in the matter of categorizing
software behaviours?

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

I certainly value the principle of pursuing purity for the PL.

That value is unrelated to my dispute with the notion that a handful
of paragraphs of language can be assembled which should reign above
all human interpretation, my dispute with the notion that such a
construct can be mechanically used (how can language exist above human
interpretation?) to cut a hard line between varieties of "pure freeware"
and varieties of "impure" free software.

You know, think even of something that is not about paragraphs of language:
the massive, continual technical endeavor with definitions and heuristics
for virus and trojan recognition. Even in that realm, you still get misses,
and the false positives. If that whole body of endeavor has a degree of
inescapable fallibility -- then how possibly can one hold that a page
of glossaries could have overruling power in the matter of categorizing
software behaviours?

No argument with that. We'll never arrive at a single formulaic
collection of definitions that will encompass every ware possibility.
We can, however, amend our definitions as new situations arise.
Language is sufficiently flexible for that, I think.

Frankly, I think the present storm in a teacup is quite well covered
by the definitions already in place. I'm not ready to be convinced
that ware discrimination is an impossible task or even a particularly
difficult one. Language may be as fallible a tool as you suggest,
omega, but so far its shortcomings haven't brought human progress to a
screeching halt. I think it may serve our limited purposes a little
longer ;-)

Langwidge mai nott be very presise, butt its oll weve gott.

 

[PuppyKatt]

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

I have no problem with that.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Thanks REM I have done that. I hope that they are indeed counted but
if I have missed the balot, I know that it is my own fault.

Hi Peggy,

I've tentatively counted the votes in your Nov. 10 post - if there's an
objection to that I'll see if I can track down the missing post (it did
not show up on the server I usually use).

Susan

 

[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.

I'm back (for now). I'll prepare and post the Preliminary 2005 PL as
quickly as I can. Two additional ballots have arrived since I posted the
final vote count - I'll repost the revised count later, the adjusted
schedule etc. etc.


Susan