Screenshot Captor: A New Definition for Freeware

[mouser]

another point:
software listing sites only let authors choose from Shareware or
Freeware.
I'm all for petitioning for more choices - if anyone wants to get
something like this started please let me know and dc would be happy to
try to round up some email campaign, etc.

 

[Bob Phillips]

We all like thejm and everything you are doing Susan!

 

[mouser]

susan i think the the ACF approach to listing the various "tags" such
as Donaionware, Registerware,(free),etc is great and very useful.
now if we could only get software listing sites to adopt your system as
well, i think everyone would benefit.

 

[Susan Bugher]

i will link to the glossary from our pages.

Super.

<snip> if i take a freeware
program and ask people on my webpage to consider petting their cat
while they download, have i now transformed my software from being
freeware to being petware?

<VBG> It becomes "Requestware"

"Requestware: you are asked to do something. Examples: send a postcard
or email to the software author, perform a good deed, make a
contribution to charity"

other ideas i wouldn't mind having terms for: what about a program that
you *must* pay for, but you can decide on the price. what about a site
that let you pay one amount and get all software the company makes
forever (i've seen this one a few times)? what would we call such
software?

I'd call it NOT free (off topic in ACF).

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Tramp]

|other ideas i wouldn't mind having terms for: what about a program that
|you *must* pay for, but you can decide on the price. what about a site
|that let you pay one amount and get all software the company makes
|forever (i've seen this one a few times)? what would we call such
|software?

Dude, don't sweat it. You call your programs whatever you want. You
release them under whatever license you want. Don't worry about what
some of the people here have to say. Some of them have very Puritan
ideas as to what constitutes freeware. alt.comp.freeware is just a very
small corner of the web.

Freeware is a umbrella term that covers many ware types.

Here is just a small sample of websites that define freeware as a
program that doesn't cost money.
<http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/definition.php?freeware>
<http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9
_gci212159,00.html>
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/freeware
http://www.greatnexus.com/glossary/w174.html
http://dict.die.net/freeware/
http://personalweb.about.com/cs/glossary/g/freeware.htm
http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_freeware.html
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/freeware.html
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?
book=Dictionary&va=freeware>
http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/freeware
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freeware
http://www.learnthat.com/define/view.asp?id=602
http://www.pcwebopaedia.com/TERM/F/freeware.htm
<http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?
lookup=2017>
http://www.computeruser.com/resources/dictionary/definition.html?lookup=
2017>

So don't worry about how others try to your programs. You know what they
are and others know what they are as well.

have a nice day!

 

[Susan Bugher]

software listing sites only let authors choose from Shareware or
Freeware.

Some sites do a bit better than that. . . for instance:

http://www.download.com/RoboForm/3000-2092_4-10037672.html

<Q>
License Free to try; $29.95 to buy Buy now...
Limitations Some features disabled after 30 days
</Q>

One work-around for the limited choice problem is to add "ware" notes in
the description field. I've seen that done - can't give you an example
off the top of my head.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Susan Bugher]

susan i think the the ACF approach to listing the various "tags" such
as Donaionware, Registerware,(free),etc is great and very useful.
now if we could only get software listing sites to adopt your system as
well, i think everyone would benefit.

I agree there are major inadequacies in the system most sites use. There
are a *lot* of apps that are free for personal use, $ware for business
use. Freeware OR Shareware just doesn't cut it. . .

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Klaatu]

in other words my definitions are more inline with the wiki page posted
than your glossary, only to the extent that i would consider freeware a
parent classification, and put something like donationware as a
subcategory. that is, something that is donationware would also still
be considered freeware if it meets the freeware requirements. that's
my view - i don't see them as exclusive categories and i don't think
something stops being freeware the moment an author mentions being
willing to accept donations.

The wiki page defines freeware as "copyrighted computer software which is
made available free of charge". Period. Though other things are discussed
on the page, that's essentially their entire definition. With only that
as a parent classification, sub-classifications would include adware,
spyware, and, although not specifically stated on the page, it could be
inferred to include warez. If I make a copy of some commercial software,
say PhotoShop for instance, and install it on my dad's computer, to him
it's freeware, as it fits the definition: a) it's copyrighted (this
didn't change with a copy being made), and b) it was made available free
of charge.

I doubt a majority here would agree with any of these as being on topic,
so wiki's definition would appear to be too broad for on topic
discussions in ACF.

 

[Susan Bugher]

The wiki page defines freeware as "copyrighted computer software which is
made available free of charge". Period. Though other things are discussed
on the page, that's essentially their entire definition. With only that
as a parent classification, sub-classifications would include adware,
spyware, and, although not specifically stated on the page, it could be
inferred to include warez. If I make a copy of some commercial software,
say PhotoShop for instance, and install it on my dad's computer, to him
it's freeware, as it fits the definition: a) it's copyrighted (this
didn't change with a copy being made), and b) it was made available free
of charge.

I doubt a majority here would agree with any of these as being on topic,
so wiki's definition would appear to be too broad for on topic
discussions in ACF.

The definition is both too broad and too narrow. Why "copyrighted"? Some
Freeware is in the public domain. A few examples:

Program: SQLite
Author: D. Richard Hipp
Install: CLI
Ware: (Freeware) (open source: public domain)
http://www.sqlite.org/

Program: Earth Screen Saver
Author: (John Walker)
Ware: (Freeware) (public domain)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/

Program: Christmas clock
Author: (Edward Pizzi)
Install: (n.i.)
Ware: (Freeware) (open source: public domain) LFW (v 2)
http://www.simtel.net/product.php?id=6219

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Roger Johansson]

That's just the definition of the user(s) who wrote this particulary
entry and not any kind of official definition of the term "freeware"...

Note that there is no kind of freeware which simply is freeware in the
wikipedia definition.

Let's take an example, Partition Saving is a freeware program most of
us know about. Or the Opera browser.

What type of freeware is it? Is it nagware, loss leader, adware,
donationware, etc..

Look at the types section in the wikipedia article and choose..

It doesn't fit into any of the types.

There is no neutral and good freeware, according to wikipedia.

I have tried to change the article to something more neutral, see the
discussion page, but the open source advocates have stopped every
attempt from me and others to write a better article, because they do
not want freeware to be seen as something positive at all. All freeware
is evil and nasty in their minds, unless it is open source, but then it
is not called freeware.

We who use and like freeware ought to try to make the article better,
but I fear we have no chance against the open source fanatics who have
mangled this article into something totally misleading.

 

[HVS]

On 17 May 2006, Roger Johansson wrote

-snip-

We who use and like freeware ought to try to make the article
better, but I fear we have no chance against the open source
fanatics who have mangled this article into something totally
misleading.

Which is a rather elegant illustration of why some of us feel that
Wikipedia is a flawed model for a reference work.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Which is a rather elegant illustration of why some of us feel that
Wikipedia is a flawed model for a reference work.

Many pages are totally dominated by strong interest groups which would
use any methods to keep those pages as they want them.

I once tried to add some to a page about "Oral tradition", or something
like that, and suddenly found myself up against a bunch of very angry
jewish traditionalist.
Obviously the expression "oral tradition" is very central in their
belief, and they accept no wider general definition of the expression
which in any way goes against their views.

The remedy for such problems would be better educated and neutral
editors who had overall control over sections of a wiki, but in
wikipedia this does not work, so many pages are under control of
individuals or groups with very firm beliefs.

 

[HVS]

Which is a rather elegant illustration of why some of us feel
that Wikipedia is a flawed model for a reference work.

Many pages are totally dominated by strong interest groups
which would use any methods to keep those pages as they want
them.

I once tried to add some to a page about "Oral tradition", or
something like that, and suddenly found myself up against a
bunch of very angry jewish traditionalist.
Obviously the expression "oral tradition" is very central in
their belief, and they accept no wider general definition of
the expression which in any way goes against their views.

The remedy for such problems would be better educated and
neutral editors who had overall control over sections of a
wiki, but in wikipedia this does not work, so many pages are
under control of individuals or groups with very firm beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Which is precisely why the existing editing model is flawed.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

(e-mail address removed) says...

| other ideas i wouldn't mind having terms for: what about a
| program that you *must* pay for, but you can decide on the price.
| what about a site that let you pay one amount and get all
| software the company makes forever (i've seen this one a few
| times)? what would we call such software?

Dude, don't sweat it. You call your programs whatever you want.
You release them under whatever license you want. Don't worry
about what some of the people here have to say. Some of them have
very Puritan ideas as to what constitutes freeware.

Dude, I don't think he would have developed as successful a
distribution model if he had dismissed people who disagree with him as
"Puritan". I don't think the model is a freeware one, but I do think
it's good that it's a model which relies on dialog.

 

[Klaatu]

So don't worry about how others try to your programs. You know what they
are and others know what they are as well.

Yep, listen to Tramp if you want to take advise from a spamity spamming
nymb-shifting spammer what spams at midnight.

 

[tsaint]

VKP:You forgot the "otherwise" = nags
I'm sorry, but I can't see the word "nags" mentioned at all in YOUR
quoted definition.
I see "cost", but as I tried to point out, that meaning is so nebulous
as to be unusable (eg financial, time, emotional, karmic, energy,
psychological etc etc cost)
In one way or another EVERY piece of software I own comes at a cost to
get and to use. Some "nags" cost me far less than "features" in other
"no-nag" type software.

 

[Ron May]

Currently the ACF pages show this ware description for Mouser's apps:
"(Donationware) (Registerware: keyed/renewable (key removes nags)) (free)"

Susan, do you ever have days when you feel like you're a pretzel?
<grin>

 

[Helen]

no matter what *we* would call it on our site -
people find out about and download our software mainly from software
listing sites - fileforum, tucows, softpedia, snapfiles, etc.
and there is always only: Shareware (with a cost field), and Freeware.

from my experience, nagware refers to software you have to BUY to
remove a nag; that is not appropriate for our software.

registerware would probably be more appropriate, but how many
lay-people really know what that means?

O.K. This last sentence solved it for me: omit this site! WTH do you
mean by the arrogrant "lay people"?

My ISP isn't free; my internet connection isn't free; my electric bill isn't free;
to call a program "FREEWARE" as a mere lure into a site that is not freeware
says enough for me.

 

[Helen]

I agree there are major inadequacies in the system most sites use.
There are a *lot* of apps that are free for personal use, $ware for
business use. Freeware OR Shareware just doesn't cut it. . .

Susan

No definition will cut it as long as the definition continues to change
to include more and more and more and more and more programs
and/or peoples' personal definitions. The continual moving of the
goal posts or adding more aces to the deck changes the entire
rules of the game such that you don't even have the same game
anymore, hence the requirement to change the name of the game.
It's the current state of affairs that whatever is the hot item of the
moment there will be freeloaders jumping on the bandwagon and
using (actually abusing) the term as bait - there are at least a
million and one disguises with the sole goal of separating YOU
from your money and they will use (abuse what was gained respect)
ANY TERM to do it.

 

[Helen]

The wiki page defines ...

Wiki can be change very easily. It is not a very reliable source for
anything but a starting point. Why not use one of the age old dictionaries
that have an element of respectablity? Wiki recently went through a
big rigamarow about inaccurate information about a person. Apparently
there was some concern about damage to the reputation as a result of
of the inaccurate information that was 'spread around the world' so to
speak. They are mere mortals and make errors too, but not a site
(at the present anyway) worth much of anything except as a starting
place for a subject one is truly and wholly ignorant of.