Response from the author of 40tude Dialog

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 20 Oct 2003, Gord McFee wrote

-snip-

I agree with several people here, you included, that at the end of
the day, it comes down to a definitional issue and not an easy one
to define. But I still maintain that Dialog is freeware with time
limit *for now*. In my view, the time limit doesn't change the
fact that it costs nothing.

It's a bit of a minefield, though.

It seems to me that if one includes as "freeware" a program which is "a
beta, free to use until it expires", one would logically also have to
allow as freeware any "beta, free to use until it expires" -- even if,
after the beta period, it is intended to be charged for. (After all:
*during the beta period* it was freeware -- it cost nothing -- but it
had just had a time limit when the version would expire).

Future intent is just that: a future intent.

 

[Gord McFee]

You are wrong.

<g>

ROTFL!

 

[Gord McFee]

On 20 Oct 2003, Gord McFee wrote

-snip-


It's a bit of a minefield, though.

It seems to me that if one includes as "freeware" a program which is "a
beta, free to use until it expires", one would logically also have to
allow as freeware any "beta, free to use until it expires" -- even if,
after the beta period, it is intended to be charged for. (After all:
*during the beta period* it was freeware -- it cost nothing -- but it
had just had a time limit when the version would expire).

Future intent is just that: a future intent.

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 20 Oct 2003, Gord McFee wrote

I don't have a problem with that.

Apologies for being thick; I'm not really clear on what you mean.

Is that "no problem with 'future intent' as part of the calculation",
or "no problem with including time-limited betaware that will later be
charged for"?

 

[Gord McFee]

Le 20/10/2003 à 08:10:51, Gord McFee écrivait :

On 20 Oct 2003 01:26:37 GMT, in
- freeware is any software that doesn't cost money to use
- betaware is any software that is in its pre-release stage
- payware is any software that requires payment in order to use all its
features.
I know it's not your intent, but by so obviously oversimplifying,
you include cracks as freeware, since they "[don't] cost money to use".
Understood. I'll ponder some more.

While ? Don't let non rational people lead you to non rational position.

Like you're about to?

Crackware and copies are freeware.

Not in this group. And it's this group's definition that matters in
this group. All that's free is not freeware. Here. That's rational.

I agree that "all that's free is not freeware". This is interesting for me
and I am finally starting to understand some of the arguments that
have sprung up here. I guess I wasn't around when they started.

In any event, I don't want to argue the issue because that detracts from
the newsgroup. But I do have a question on betaware. John's FAQ says
the following about betaware:

<quote>

Betaware is sometimes recommended when it is from a reputable and well know
author (an example would be Zone Labs and their program Zone Alarm) and the
evaluation is not mandatory.

</quote>

That would seem to me to mean that Dialog could qualify for discussion in
this newsgroup.

I can see though how other people would see it differently.

 

[Gord McFee]

On 20 Oct 2003, Gord McFee wrote


Apologies for being thick; I'm not really clear on what you mean.

I doubt that it is you who is thick.

Is that "no problem with 'future intent' as part of the calculation",
or "no problem with including time-limited betaware that will later be
charged for"?

Sorry, I meant I had no problem with what you said in the preceding
paragraph. As I understand it, the author of Dialog intends to keep it as
freeware, although of course there is no guarantee he will be able to do so.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

John Fitzsimons wrote:

No it is not. Freeware is not time-limited. Period.

< snip >

My copy was freeware. Didn't cost me anything. No adware, spyware etc.
Anyone can go to http://40tude.com/dialog/index.htm and get a free
copy. The only thing to note is that it is time limited. Making it
time limited freeware.


Regards, John.

 

[Offbreed]

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF USING A SOCK PUPPET ? shame on you john, i thought
you had more common sense than that.

Thank you for top posting.

That makes deciding whether or not to just skip the post much easier in Google.

 

[rtdos]

YOU'RE WELCOME!

"rtdos" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Thank you for top posting.

That makes deciding whether or not to just skip the post much easier in

Google.

 

[Onno]

time limited freeware.

That's an oxymoron.

 

[Onno]

But
I still maintain that Dialog is freeware with time limit *for now*.
In my view, the time limit doesn't change the fact that it costs
nothing.

The latter is true, but that still doesn't make the current and previous
versions of Dialog freeware.
Dialog can't be used freely. One doesn't have the freedom to use it as
long as wanted, as it is time-limited.
The fact that every time-limited beta is succeeded by another one does
not change that. One doesn't have the freedom to use the version of
choice. That is a very serious limitation to its use.
Sometimes I prefer older versions to newer ones. With freeware I can
revert to those older versions. With Dialog I can't.

I understand the reason why the author of Dialog makes time-limited betas
and I respect that. However, the consequence is indeed that Dialog is not
freeware. Not the end of the world, and I do not doubt that there will be
a freeware version.

Can't wait for it! This whole discussion will become obsolete

 

[Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=]

Hello,


Le 21/10/2003 à 10:45:39, Onno écrivait :

That's an oxymoron.

That is an opinion ;-)

And just as it seems that you prefer too to refer to a "old group
definition" than read other posts, with *your* definition there are
contradictions and problems not only with Dialog, but with other
programs that are time limited by nature or that are not free to be use in
one way (for example not on windows 32 or not on Windows 16 or ...)

I tried to show how dangerous it is to believe that a rule can solve your
problem : be consistent in this group and discuss only freeware and not
illegal (but for what contries) or commercial products.

Don't you believe that the spirit of a guide line is more important than the
form ?

Nobody answered this question.

but it is not necessary to be perfect to answer ;-)

 

[Vic Dura]

My copy was freeware. Didn't cost me anything. No adware, spyware etc.
Anyone can go to http://40tude.com/dialog/index.htm and get a free
copy. The only thing to note is that it is time limited. Making it
time limited freeware.

I agree 100%

 

[Vic Dura]

Don't you believe that the spirit of a guide line is more important than the
form ?

Nobody answered this question.

I'll answer. Yes, the spirit of the guidline is more important.
Particularly in ACF which is unmoderated.

 

[Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=]

Hello,


Le 21/10/2003 à 14:55:45, Vic Dura écrivait :

I'll answer. Yes, the spirit of the guidline is more important.
Particularly in ACF which is unmoderated.

So you are perfect ;-)

But in my mind, I was thinking that nobody answered that the spirit is less
important than the rules.

Sorry for the over simplification ;-)

 

[Gord McFee]

On 21 Oct 2003 09:10:29 GMT, in

I understand the reason why the author of Dialog makes time-limited betas
and I respect that. However, the consequence is indeed that Dialog is not
freeware. Not the end of the world, and I do not doubt that there will be
a freeware version.

In any event, we have talked this to death.

Can't wait for it! This whole discussion will become obsolete

*That* will be great!

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:14:40 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle

It seems to me that if one includes as "freeware" a program which is "a
beta, free to use until it expires", one would logically also have to
allow as freeware any "beta, free to use until it expires" -- even if,
after the beta period, it is intended to be charged for.

< snip >

Not at all. A beta that expires and is not replaced by another
freeware version would not be freeware.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

That's an oxymoron.

Not when a freeware replacement is promised before expiration
date.

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Oct 2003, John Fitzsimons wrote

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:14:40 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle



< snip >

Not at all. A beta that expires and is not replaced by another
freeware version would not be freeware.

<re-insert snipped comment>:

Future intent is just that: a future intent.

 

[Onno]

Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=

Hello,


Le 21/10/2003 à 10:45:39, Onno écrivait :


That is an opinion ;-)

That is your opinion

And just as it seems that you prefer too to refer to a "old group
definition" than read other posts,

If you can only utter assumptions, perhaps you'd better say nothing at
all.

with *your* definition there are

My definition? Where?

contradictions and problems not only with Dialog, but with other
programs that are time limited by nature or that are not free to be
use in one way (for example not on windows 32 or not on Windows 16 or
...)

You're comparing apples and oranges here

I tried to show how dangerous it is to believe that a rule can solve
your problem :

[snip]

My problem? what problem?

Don't you believe that the spirit of a guide line is more important
than the form ?

Yes, but in order to act in accordance with that spirit one needs to
understand it. You do not seem to.