Response from the author of 40tude Dialog

[John Corliss]

Just thought that the group might want to know that the Marcus Monnig
emailed me to say that he is adding a notice to his site (on the
download page) about his beta program's time limitation. I just went
to his site and verified that he's done this.

My thanks to Marcus for his quick response to this issue. He's done
the right thing, in my opinion. Now others won't have to go through
what I did in order to discover the time limitation.

I also like the fact that he's included his rational for that time
limitation.

However, make no mistake: I still believe that disucussion of
time-limited betaware in this group is inappropriate. JMOFWIW

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[Vic Dura]

However, make no mistake: I still believe that disucussion of
time-limited betaware in this group is inappropriate. JMOFWIW

That's quite a different statement from your previous decrees that it
was "off topic". JMOFWIW

 

[status]

beta-ware does NOT mean spyware or adware or non-freeware. TIME
LIMITED beta-ware is just that: beta. it means that the author wants
a controlled enviroment to test his / her software which would yield
more accurate results. how many of you have downloaded freeware and
rarely used the product that you downloaded; when you download and
don't use a beta products you're not really helping the author's
development timescale.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Just thought that the group might want to know that the Marcus Monnig
emailed me to say that he is adding a notice to his site (on the
download page) about his beta program's time limitation. I just went
to his site and verified that he's done this.

This would explain, then, the folks who read it, and asked you why you
missed it (when you were there before he added it).

 

[John Corliss]

beta-ware does NOT mean spyware or adware

I never said that it did.

or non-freeware.

This, I *did* say. Read the definitions page in my version of the
F.A.Q. for the rationale. Betaware is *not* freeware. That doesn't
mean necessarily though, that discussion of all betaware is
inappropriate in ACF.

TIME LIMITED beta-ware is just that: beta.

No, "TIME LIMITED beta-ware" is just that: *time limited*.

it means that the author wants
a controlled enviroment to test his / her software which would yield
more accurate results. how many of you have downloaded freeware and
rarely used the product that you downloaded; when you download and
don't use a beta products you're not really helping the author's
development timescale.

Your logic here is unclear and difficult to extrapolate your meaning
from. I have no problem with Marcus Mönnig's motivation for making the
current version of his program time limited. That's his business.
However, his motivation isn't the issue. The issue is simply that it
*is* time limited. And as I've said in other posts, my motivation for
not liking this precedent is the following:

"...we have only Marcus Mönnig's word that the program will eventually
be freeware. I'm not saying that he absolutely isn't a man of his
word, only that I have no experiential evidence to support that
assumption.
It would be too easy for others (for instance, somebody with the
ethics of the person who runs the Huntersoft site) to jump on the
bandwagon and tout their software as being something that would
eventually be freeware, then "yank the rug" and release the final
version as payware.
This is my reasoning for wanting the group not to discuss time
limited betaware. It establishes a precedent that could be abused by
unsavory characters."

Remember too, that when a program is described as being freeware, we
aren't necessarily referring to all existing versions of that program.
Assuming that we are in fact *doing* this, is the mistake that many of
you are making in this discussion.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[John Corliss]

This would explain, then, the folks who read it, and asked you why you
missed it (when you were there before he added it).

Yep. Exactly. And I didn't want to cut and paste an exact copy of his
email as proof (a mistake I've made with others in the past) because
it's bad manners. At this point, I've deleted that message from Marcus
from my system since I felt it was no longer necessary to keep it.

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[SINNER]

* John Corliss Wrote in alt.comp.freeware, on Tue, 14 Oct 2003 05:31:50 -0700:

I never said that it did.

This, I *did* say. Read the definitions page in my version of the
F.A.Q. for the rationale. Betaware is *not* freeware. That doesn't
mean necessarily though, that discussion of all betaware is
inappropriate in ACF.

The "IN MY VERSION" of the above statement sort of kills your argument.

Saying all betaware is freeware or that betaware is NOT freeware is
simply NOT that simple and this group is unmoderated. Based on responces
in this thread most disagree with your assesment of this program not
being freeware, and since this is an unmoderated group and the majority
rules, you should really ease off on this one.

 

[John Corliss]

The "IN MY VERSION" of the above statement sort of kills your argument.

*sigh* Do I really have to clarify this AGAIN?

The "my version" is meant to indicate that I'm referring to the
version of the F.A.Q. that I compiled as opposed to John Fitzsimons'
version. Nothing more.
It does NOT indicate that my version of the F.A.Q. is simply a
compilation of my opinions and preferences. Far from it! It might
surprise you and others to learn that there is much in my version of
the F.A.Q. that I personally DON'T agree with. However, specifically
what I disagree with, I keep to myself. I wrote "my version of the
F.A.Q." to reflect the opionions of others in this group as determined
through extensive discussion and voting.

Saying all betaware is freeware or that betaware is NOT freeware is
simply NOT that simple

That however, does not mean that the latter isn't true. That's why I'm
putting so much effort into delineating my remarks and providing the
logic behind them. And this group *is* for the discussion of freeware,
both in general and specifically. You seem to be implying that such
discussion should not be pursued and I thoroughly disagree.

and this group is unmoderated.

As I've pointed out on *numerous* occasions, I'm perfectly aware of
this fact. That doesn't mean though, that this group should not be or
isn't "self regulating" (for lack of a better description.) That's
simply another fact that *you* have to accept.

Based on responces
in this thread most disagree with your assesment of this program not
being freeware,

The basis for your conclusion is flawed. The only assumption you can
make is that most of those who have posted replies are those who
disagree. There is no way of knowing whether or not those who agree
most likely see no point in replying since the thread was not a vote
thread. And vote threads are unfeasable these days due to the
extensive use of sock puppets that didn't use to occur in the "old days."

and since this is an unmoderated group and the majority
rules, you should really ease off on this one.

a. As I said, you have no basis for making the determination that the
majority disagrees with me.

b. I will never ease off regarding the definition of freeware. You
should know this by now. I will continue (as others do) to post my
opinions, and (unlike a lot of people) to clarify why I feel that way.

Again, betaware is NOT freeware. That doesn't mean that discussion of
betaware is inappropriate in this group. However, discussion in this
group of TIME LIMITED software *OF ANY KIND* is inappropriate in my
opinion. I've given the reason for my feelings regarding this in other
posts.

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[Vic Dura]

This, I *did* say. Read the definitions page in my version of the
F.A.Q. for the rationale.

Your definition is not binding on anyone.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

This is my reasoning for wanting the group not to discuss time
limited betaware. It establishes a precedent that could be abused by
unsavory characters."

Many will remember ImageMage, in this vein.

 

[Malu']

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:46:02 -0700
John Corliss ha scritto:

And vote threads are unfeasable these days due to the
extensive use of sock puppets that didn't use to occur in the "old days.

This upsets me, John.
I respect you and your opinions, even when I don't agree with you, as in
this discussion.
I'm with you when you fight for the consistency of this NG with its name.
However, the meaning of freeware _could_ include "beta that expires but
before expiration will become freeware".
This is a fact. You can't say no, it can't because _we_ voted in another
way 2 years ago, and now _you_ can't vote anymore due to the extensive use
of sock puppets.
This would be a Taliban reasoning.
I've been following this NG since january 2002, then I wasn't here in the
"old days", nevertheless I'd like to vote on this issue.
I'm not afraid of the vote of anyone because I see that here for the most
part the users are rational and correct.

 

[rtdos]

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:46:02 -0700
John Corliss ha scritto:


This upsets me, John.
I respect you and your opinions, even when I don't agree with you, as in
this discussion.
I'm with you when you fight for the consistency of this NG with its name.
However, the meaning of freeware _could_ include "beta that expires but
before expiration will become freeware".
This is a fact. You can't say no, it can't because _we_ voted in another
way 2 years ago, and now _you_ can't vote anymore due to the extensive use
of sock puppets.
This would be a Taliban reasoning.
I've been following this NG since january 2002, then I wasn't here in the
"old days", nevertheless I'd like to vote on this issue.
I'm not afraid of the vote of anyone because I see that here for the most
part the users are rational and correct.
--
Maria Luisa - 14/10/2003 19.51.03, here.
A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular.
Adlai Stevenson
Now playing: nothing

if you took freeware to its purest form, like John suggests, then there
would be practically nothing left. A lot of OpenSource FreeWare programs
ARE in fact, usually BETAware and never leave that stage of development.

 

[Gert van der Kooij]

Just thought that the group might want to know that the Marcus Monnig
emailed me to say that he is adding a notice to his site (on the
download page) about his beta program's time limitation. I just went
to his site and verified that he's done this.

My thanks to Marcus for his quick response to this issue. He's done
the right thing, in my opinion. Now others won't have to go through
what I did in order to discover the time limitation.

I also like the fact that he's included his rational for that time
limitation.

However, make no mistake: I still believe that disucussion of
time-limited betaware in this group is inappropriate. JMOFWIW

Marcus also says on the download page that 'The final (non-beta)
version 2.0 will not be time limited and will still be freeware.'
Because of that it shouldn't be a problem to recommend it in ACF.

Of course news.software.readers is the best group to ask questions
about it.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:46:02 -0700
John Corliss ha scritto:

However, the meaning of freeware _could_ include "beta that expires but
before expiration will become freeware".

< snip >

Or

"Unlimited (apart from time) betas that will continue to be freeware
when out of the beta period."

As the Dialog situation is almost a "one off" an even better idea
would be to simply point out it's time limitation and not bother with
pointless threads about it's status.


Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

if you took freeware to its purest form, like John suggests, then there
would be practically nothing left. A lot of OpenSource FreeWare programs
ARE in fact, usually BETAware and never leave that stage of development.

Yes, interesting how nobody objected to the discussion of such
excellent programs as K9, and PopFile, when they were both in
BETAware versions.

Regards, John.

 

[Susan Bugher]

As the Dialog situation is almost a "one off" an even better idea
would be to simply point out it's time limitation

I have just revised the Pricelessware description and noted the time
limitation.

and not bother with
pointless threads about it's status.

I think this discussion is far from pointless.

I just did a Google search - looking for discussion about 40tude Dialog
during last year's Pricelessware selection process. AFAIK the time
limitation was never mentioned.

Is was discussed briefly in a thread shortly before nominations were
opened.

Nov 2, 2002
Subject: OT Testing newsreader

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...+group%3Aalt.comp.freeware&btnG=Google+Search

A great many programs are nominated each year. It is not possible for
all of us to evaluate each program for suitability for the Pricelessware
list.

IMO ware types should be mentioned when a program is nominated for the
Pricelessware list. Informed discussion and voting is the goal. I think
full disclosure of any deviations from the ACF definition of freeware
would help us achieve it.

Susan

 

[John Corliss]

rtdos wrote:

Once again, rtdos is putting words in my mouth. I've never "suggested"
anything of the sort (that is, if I can understand his-her typically
generalized and emotion based objection.)

Yes, interesting how nobody objected to the discussion of such
excellent programs as K9, and PopFile, when they were both in
BETAware versions.

John,
My objection has *never* been to the fact that 40tude Dialog is
betaware. My one and only objection has always been to the fact *that
the program is time limited*.
And I've never said that betaware in general shouldn't be discussed
in this group. This is even though the price you pay for using
betaware is being a guinea pig for the author. Obviously, one
"betaware" is going to be more "alphaware-like" than another. The risk
involved varies from one program to another.

Betaware is betaware. It *isn't* freeware. That doesn't mean, however,
that it shouldn't necessarily be discussed in this group.

The reason I say this is because each release of a program has to be
carefully considered as to whether or not it's freeware. You can't
just say that 40tude Dialog is freeware, regardless of the version.
One really has to wait and see with each version. And as far as I'm
concerned, *any* time limited software *by definition* is NOT freeware
because freeware is for your unlimited (timewise) use.

To say that all versions of the program are freeware because the
author has intentions of eventually releasing the program as a
non-time limited free program is simply not the right thing to do. It
establishes a precedent that can easily be abused by those who would
seek free time-limited beta testing for programs that they inwardly
have no intention of releasing as freeware.

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[Vic Dura]

Betaware is betaware. It *isn't* freeware. That doesn't mean, however,
that it shouldn't necessarily be discussed in this group.

Well, that's a place we disagree. A beta version of a freeware program
is freeware IMO.

That's not what your faq says, but I don't accept your faq as a
charter for this NG because:

1) This NG was started without a charter or moderator as a forum for a
*broad* and open discussion of free software. Broad and open is what
the alt-NGs are all about. You can't change that with a faq.

2) There is no overwhelming consensus for the definition of "freeware"
contained in the faq. Certainly some people agree with it, but
certainly there is also a substantial amount of disagreement as
evidenced by the amount of controversy ignited each time someone tries
to limit discussion in the NG based on the strictures contained in the
faq.

 

[John Corliss]

This upsets me, John.

It upsets the hell out of *me* too! That is to say, the fact that this
has occured. And there are two kinds of sock puppet users:

1. those who use anonymous remailer services like https://ssl.dizum.com/

2. those who use a service like http://www.altopia.com/ and other
tools so that they alter their header information in order in order to
generate relatively bullet-proof sock puppets.

The first kind is easy enough to ignore, but the second kind as
espoused at (http://fluffy.port5.com/) has ruined the credibility of
the voting process and takes great delight in the fact that (s)he(it)
has done so.

I respect you and your opinions, even when I don't agree with you, as in
this discussion.
I'm with you when you fight for the consistency of this NG with its name.
However, the meaning of freeware _could_ include "beta that expires but
before expiration will become freeware".
This is a fact. You can't say no, it can't because _we_ voted in another
way 2 years ago, and now _you_ can't vote anymore due to the extensive use
of sock puppets. This would be a Taliban reasoning.

You are simply missing the point. *ANY* time-limited VERSION of a
program can't be considered to be freeware because it violates the
basic definition of freeware that this group has agreed to:

"... You may use freeware for as long as you wish."

Add to this the FACT that you *can't* classify as freeware _all
versions_ of a particular program *including* future versions that
_don't even exist yet_! Attempting to do so is speculation at best.

On another note, please don't accuse me of being a terrorist. That
kind of thing has no place in this group and being a citizen of the
United States *as I am*, that particular accusation is especially
upsetting to me.

I've been following this NG since january 2002, then I wasn't here in the
"old days", nevertheless I'd like to vote on this issue.
I'm not afraid of the vote of anyone because I see that here for the most
part the users are rational and correct.

Tell that to the Tallybonbon/Mavis Chillum/Randy Freidman/Snapper/Son
of Snapper/etc. etc. etc. sock puppet master. (S)he(it) claims to be
in retirement, but I still frequently see posts that are most likely
from that particular troll. Of course, there's no way of knowing
whether or not this is the case because you can't I.D. the person(s)
with any degree of certainty. If they aren't from that troll, then
they're from somebody else who's using the same tactics. The end
result is the same.

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html
Note that I can't see any of Andy Mabbett's troll posts
because I have him killfiled.

 

[Malu']

Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:09:31 -0700
John Corliss ha scritto:

Malu' wrote:

On another note, please don't accuse me of being a terrorist. That
kind of thing has no place in this group and being a citizen of the
United States *as I am*, that particular accusation is especially
upsetting to me.

We were speaking about the possibility to vote or not, then I used the
adjective "taliban" as synonymous of "anti-democratic".
I thought it was obvious.