Thanks. So in which of these categories would you say Free Microsoft
Publisher Templates belongs? I'd say "freeware." What do you think,
Susan?
I have no doubt that Susan will tell you. Meanwhile I'll interrupt,
in the politest possible way.
Yes, there are grey areas here. If one wants to be absolutely
rigorous about it, they're easily disposed of: if it isn't stand-alone
executable code it isn't any kind of ware and is therefore OT.
As this template can only be used in a buyware program it would seem
to me to be at the very blackest end of the spectrum, whereas
something like PhotoShop plugins which can be used in many freeware
graphics editors are somewhat paler. They do get discussed.
Traditionally, we have avoided dealing with plug-ins and templates
which can only be used in commercial programs. Yes, they may be free,
but you can't use them unless you buy, or have bought, the program, so
what's the point? That has always seemed to me, at least, a sensible
rule of thumb.
If we push this to the logical extreme, as has been happening in this
thread, we end up in a ridiculous and untenable situation. On the one
hand we throw the door open to something that seems to defeat the
sense of having a freeware group at all, on the other, we may say,
yeah, but none of these freeware programs work without Windows, which
we have to pay for, so why not include things that only work in Word
or Publisher? It *is* ridiculous, isn't it? We have left common
sense far behind.
I rarely object to these discursive threads on the nature of Freeware;
in fact I think they're a very good thing. But this one's going
nowhere. It isn't useful. It isn't helping us to create a working
definition that is useful to us. You're banging away at one anomalous
situation that we have dealt with in a.c.f repeatedly, Joe.
Further, and I'm wandering off topic here myself, you're doing no-one
any favours by encouraging them to use the execrable Publisher. It's
an excellent object lesson in How Not To Create A DTP Program.
