Freeware is not adware and is not crippleware

[Son Of Spy]

My take.

As an adjunct to my invention/proposal/brainchild of what is now
referred to as the Pricelessware list, in a call to create a FAQ
for this newsgroup, I posted on November 27th 1999 the following.

----------------------------------------------------------

This brings us back to the point of needing a FAQ for the
newsgroup, so we don't have to waste time defining +
defending the obvious. So IMHO first we need a FAQ,
second a definition of Freeware that we can **ALL**
live with which is neither too narrow not too broad. I
feel this may best be achieved by a degree of com-
promise, and by developing a multi-level, definition as
follows: First, ***NO MONEY*** is an axiom.

Level 1: (which we shall call freeware for the pure in more than
wallet)No nags, no cards, no letters, no time limits, FFF (full
functionality forever) and definitely no advertisements.

Level 2: (freeware for the pure in wallet) Mild requirements...
send a postcard, kiss your policeman (Hi POKO)
care about the Earth. No nags FFF and no advertisements.

Level 3: (freeware for the frugal through no fault of their own)
A mildly feature limited ( a version of a shareware app) program
which still provides a useful degree of service, with no nags, no
cards,no letters, FFF (see above) and no advertisements.

---------------------------------------------------------------

At *that time* I also mentioned a level4 (adware) and level5
(crippleware) and spoke of moderation, but with the advent of
spyware IMNSHO these are no longer worthy of inclusion in *any*
definition of freeware...let alone the Pricelessware list.

Regards,

Son Of Spy




--

Some You Won't Find Anywhere Else...
http://sonofspy3.spymac.net/index.html
http://www.sover.net/~wysiwygx/index.html

. --- . . - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ SOS \ __ / Freeware - - - - - -
/ / \ ( ) / - - - - -
/ / / / / / / \/ \ - - - -
/ / / / / / / : : - - -
/ / / / / ' ' - -
/ / //..\\
=====UU==UU=====
'///||\\\'
' '' '

 

[Gordon Darling]

My take.

As an adjunct to my invention/proposal/brainchild of what is now
referred to as the Pricelessware list, in a call to create a FAQ
for this newsgroup, I posted on November 27th 1999 the following.

----------------------------------------------------------

This brings us back to the point of needing a FAQ for the
newsgroup, so we don't have to waste time defining +
defending the obvious. So IMHO first we need a FAQ,
second a definition of Freeware that we can **ALL**
live with which is neither too narrow not too broad. I
feel this may best be achieved by a degree of com-
promise, and by developing a multi-level, definition as
follows: First, ***NO MONEY*** is an axiom.

Level 1. Libre/FOSS. Genuine, free open source software licensed under the
GPL, BSD, Apache or similar OSI (http://www.opensource.org/) approved
licences

Renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Level 1: (which we shall call freeware for the pure in more than
wallet)No nags, no cards, no letters, no time limits, FFF (full
functionality forever) and definitely no advertisements.

Level 2: (freeware for the pure in wallet) Mild requirements...
send a postcard, kiss your policeman (Hi POKO)
care about the Earth. No nags FFF and no advertisements.

Level 3: (freeware for the frugal through no fault of their own)
A mildly feature limited ( a version of a shareware app) program
which still provides a useful degree of service, with no nags, no
cards,no letters, FFF (see above) and no advertisements.

Regards
Gordon

 

[granpaw]

My take.

As an adjunct to my invention/proposal/brainchild of what is now
referred to as the Pricelessware list, in a call to create a FAQ
for this newsgroup, I posted on November 27th 1999 the following.

----------------------------------------------------------

This brings us back to the point of needing a FAQ for the
newsgroup, so we don't have to waste time defining +
defending the obvious. So IMHO first we need a FAQ,
second a definition of Freeware that we can **ALL**
live with which is neither too narrow not too broad. I
feel this may best be achieved by a degree of com-
promise, and by developing a multi-level, definition as
follows: First, ***NO MONEY*** is an axiom.

Level 1: (which we shall call freeware for the pure in more than
wallet)No nags, no cards, no letters, no time limits, FFF (full
functionality forever) and definitely no advertisements.

Level 2: (freeware for the pure in wallet) Mild requirements...
send a postcard, kiss your policeman (Hi POKO)
care about the Earth. No nags FFF and no advertisements.

Level 3: (freeware for the frugal through no fault of their own)
A mildly feature limited ( a version of a shareware app) program
which still provides a useful degree of service, with no nags, no
cards,no letters, FFF (see above) and no advertisements.

---------------------------------------------------------------

At *that time* I also mentioned a level4 (adware) and level5
(crippleware) and spoke of moderation, but with the advent of
spyware IMNSHO these are no longer worthy of inclusion in *any*
definition of freeware...let alone the Pricelessware list.

Regards,

Son Of Spy

Well said S.o.S.
Glad to see you name in here again.

granpaw (shorts-in-egger)

 

[Bob Adkins]

My take.

I think people will have to decide for themselves. People have a very wide
difference in their tolerance for nags, ads, and Spyware. On man's minor
annoyance is another's poison.

The reason there has been so much controversy surrounding what is and isn't
Freeware is because of people's personal tolerance for annoyance, and even
the "principles" they stand on.

IOW, it comes down to personal opinion, and many gray areas.

We must look at things objectively, and without injecting the emotion of the
personal opinions and principles of others.

*Freeware* simply means you do not have to pay any MONEY to use the program.
That's the objective definition. Everything else is subjective, and will
never be completely agreeable to everyone. So forgetaboutit.

Any software that is FREE (remember, you don't have to pay for it) should be
on-topic here.

Personally, I have a loose "usability" rating. Some nags are only 1 time
(Maxthon), and once dismissed, never reappear. Is that "Nagware"? In light
of the benefits of the program, NO! It would take a lot more nagging to
discourage me from using the product. Yet some people would define Maxthon
as Nagware.

How about "Spyware"? In principle, I loathe Spyware.

In reality, many nice Spyware-infested software can easily be de-fanged and
used just fine. Is this wrong? Does it send the wrong message to purveyors
of Spyware? Not in my opinion! Quite the opposite! If *everyone* would
neuter the Spyware and use the program anyway, the Spyware business would
immediately collapse.

Bottom line, don't let anyone talk you out of using a good Freeware program
because of "principles" or minor annoyances. If it's free enough for you,
that's all that matters. Don't feel you must run with the herd or use
artificial ratings.

All that said, when recommending Freeware, it is our duty to warn others
about the existence of nags and Spyware. They can decide if the negatives
are excessive according to their own tolerance.

YMMV.

-- Bob

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

[...]

How about "Spyware"? In principle, I loathe Spyware.

In reality, many nice Spyware-infested software can easily be de-fanged and
used just fine. Is this wrong? Does it send the wrong message to purveyors
of Spyware? Not in my opinion! Quite the opposite! If *everyone* would
neuter the Spyware and use the program anyway, the Spyware business would
immediately collapse.

That's not advice I would choose to give. Neutering the spying part
is almost always against the EULA of these programs. Should we be
advising users to do something that is illegal? Even if that
particular moral and legal swamp doesn't turn you off, there are many
spyware elements that are quite challenging to get rid of, even for
accomplished users. From a standpoint of practicality, as much as
principle, I would say that recommending spyware as freeware is just
plain wrong.

Bottom line, don't let anyone talk you out of using a good Freeware program
because of "principles" or minor annoyances. If it's free enough for you,
that's all that matters. Don't feel you must run with the herd or use
artificial ratings.

Just because we try to categorise programs that purport to be freeware
but sometimes are not doesn't make us herd animals. There are
gradations, grey areas and then again there are programs that are just
not free, but pretend to be.

If a spyware author says, "You can use my program in return for
supplying me with the statistics of your browsing" that would seem to
me to be an unacceptable quid pro quo. That's not freeware, that's
payment in kind.

All that said, when recommending Freeware, it is our duty to warn others
about the existence of nags and Spyware. They can decide if the negatives
are excessive according to their own tolerance.

We should be very careful about what we recommend, for good reason.
Many spyware programs can screw your PC's performance royally. In
addition, the spyware author is providing a product that is
commercial, so far as he is concerned. We're not here to tout
commercial programs. Usenet has other groups for that, including one
specifically for spyware.

If you're going to recommend spyware, I hope you're prepared help
users sort out the mess it causes.

YMMV.

It does, it does

 

[Aaron]

I think people will have to decide for themselves. People have a very
wide difference in their tolerance for nags, ads, and Spyware. On
man's minor annoyance is another's poison.

The reason there has been so much controversy surrounding what is and
isn't Freeware is because of people's personal tolerance for
annoyance, and even the "principles" they stand on.

IOW, it comes down to personal opinion, and many gray areas.

Indeed. All this arguing about what is freeware or not, seems to be tearing
the group apart almost as effectively as if the evil masterminds out to
dilute the defintion freeware have won

We must look at things objectively, and without injecting the emotion
of the personal opinions and principles of others.

I'm sure everyone thinks they are doing that. But as you say it must
eventually come down to personal opinion and that is impossible to be
totally objectively.

*Freeware* simply means you do not have to pay any MONEY to use the
program. That's the objective definition. Everything else is
subjective, and will never be completely agreeable to everyone. So
forgetaboutit.

Any software that is FREE (remember, you don't have to pay for it)
should be on-topic here.

Careful there Bob that is very close to heresy.

All that said, when recommending Freeware, it is our duty to warn
others about the existence of nags and Spyware. They can decide if the
negatives are excessive according to their own tolerance.

I suppose you think this holds for inclusion into the pricelessware list
too?

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Indeed. All this arguing about what is freeware or not, seems to be tearing
the group apart almost as effectively as if the evil masterminds out to
dilute the defintion freeware have won

I think you'll find that the group doesn't tear easily.

 

[Bob Adkins]

If you're going to recommend spyware, I hope you're prepared help
users sort out the mess it causes.

I think I said that. I said something like "If you recommend Freeware, you
should warn about any spyware it contains". Or something like that.

Bottom line, you can not strictly define Freeware except to say "You don't
have to pay money for it".

As for the rats that distribute sneaky spyware with their programs, they
deserve to have it neutered.

The only model I accept are "opt in" or "opt out", such as Maxthon and
Messenger Plus utilize.

-- Bob

 

[Aaron]

I think you'll find that the group doesn't tear easily.

Except when it comes to deciding which is the true pricelessware site.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

I think I said that. I said something like "If you recommend Freeware, you
should warn about any spyware it contains". Or something like that.

Freeware CANNOT contain spyware. Otherwise *this* group has no
purpose.

Bottom line, you can not strictly define Freeware except to say "You don't
have to pay money for it".
Agree.

As for the rats that distribute sneaky spyware with their programs, they
deserve to have it neutered.

NO, they deserve their programs to be never mentioned here.
Your can "neuter" them if you want, but don't pretend that all readers
here will, or reasonably know how.

 

[jo]

In reality, many nice Spyware-infested software can easily be de-fanged and
used just fine. Is this wrong? Does it send the wrong message to purveyors
of Spyware? Not in my opinion! Quite the opposite! If *everyone* would
neuter the Spyware and use the program anyway, the Spyware business would
immediately collapse.

Many time limited sharew*re apps can have the time limits removed; many
ad supported apps can have the ads removed; there are workrounds for the
registration requirements of many or most of the aps that require
registration...

Bottom line, don't let anyone talk you out of using a good Freeware program
because of "principles" or minor annoyances. If it's free enough for you,
that's all that matters. Don't feel you must run with the herd or use
artificial ratings.

Cracks are free. Should we start recommending them here when someone
complains about a piece of trialware expiring? It's only a matter of
principle after all.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Except when it comes to deciding which is the true pricelessware site.

Okay, Aaron. Define tear, then. Both sites are still here and so are
most of us. Damned if I can see a great rip in the fabric of a.c.f.

That little contretemps will be sorted out in the same way all the
rest have been: by the passage of a some time and whatever discussion
is necessary. If it needs any sorting, that is. Doesn't seem to be
causing any problems right now.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

I think I said that. I said something like "If you recommend Freeware, you
should warn about any spyware it contains". Or something like that.

That's a big responsibility, Bob. Many of those seeking software
advice here are not particularly computer-savvy. Telling them it's
spyware isn't really enough. You'd be taking a chance on screwing
their PC and handing them over to the marketroids.

It just isn't right to advise someone to infect their machine with a
commercial trojan that they may not have the skills to remove.
Spyware's not freeware.

Bottom line, you can not strictly define Freeware except to say "You don't
have to pay money for it".

"You don't have to pay money for it" doesn't begin to define freeware.
I recognise that it's difficult to come up with definitions that cover
all situations in a constantly changing software environment. We've
been through that with the faqs and the ware glossaries. That doesn't
mean we give up and throw our hands in the air and say, "If you don't
have to pay for it, it's free."

We have good working definitions that can be amended as necessity
requires. Nobody said it was going to be easy. Nothing worthwhile
is.

As for the rats that distribute sneaky spyware with their programs, they
deserve to have it neutered.

They may do, but that's not what's important. What's important is
that a.c.f has a good reputation because it has always taken a strong
ethical and legal stance. We don't recommend piracy or cracking and
by token of the same regard we should not recommend breaking the
license requirements of other types of software, either. That's a
pretty steep slippery slope.

People trust us because we don't let our standards slip.

 

[Aaron]

Okay, Aaron. Define tear, then. Both sites are still here and so are
most of us.

Are you so sure about that?

Damned if I can see a great rip in the fabric of a.c.f.

LOL, try not to be so literal. All this arguing ,squabbling can be
avoided if people didn't have so big egos. Take the whole arguing about
the pricelessware site? What was at stake? And yet we had countless
threads about it.

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

Are you so sure about that?

Reasonably so. The sites are certainly there and the group isn't
deserted.

LOL, try not to be so literal.

Actually, I was being allusive. I don't really believe a.c.f is made
of cloth.

All this arguing ,squabbling can be
avoided if people didn't have so big egos. Take the whole arguing about
the pricelessware site? What was at stake? And yet we had countless
threads about it.

So why do you want to resurrect it now?

 

[Bill Day]

Level 1: (which we shall call freeware for the pure in more than
wallet)No nags, no cards, no letters, no time limits, FFF (full
functionality forever) and definitely no advertisements.

Level 2: (freeware for the pure in wallet) Mild requirements...
send a postcard, kiss your policeman (Hi POKO)
care about the Earth. No nags FFF and no advertisements.

Level 3: (freeware for the frugal through no fault of their own)
A mildly feature limited ( a version of a shareware app) program
which still provides a useful degree of service, with no nags, no
cards,no letters, FFF (see above) and no advertisements.

Son Of Spy

I would regard these 3 levels as the absolute limiit that should be
discussed here. I'd 'prefer' just the 1st 2, but I see the point. (I'm
sure that even John Corliss could have lived with it, if it never got
worse..)
I am a member of as online folk music group with an 'open'
discussion board, and naturally, people pop in who hate limits &
definitions that restrict THEIR idea of a good song or topic, even if
it is rock & roll....and discussions like this ensue. IThis happens in
beer discussion groups, auto racing groups and REALLY happens in SCA
groups.......it will always be that way.
Here, it could be 'easier', as all one needs is another group with
unlimited rules......but people are lazy, and don't want to have to
open two groups to discuss their software.

There are perfectly good reasons to limit the scope of a discussion
group, and every one has been noted a hundred times.....the ONLY thing
that will work to to not respond, answer, or comment when someone
heads off topic, but there are always those who break ranks.
Folks...USE whatever you want...but DISCUSS it in a more appropriate
place. Isn't there an alt.comp.shareware group?

I am not a programmer, computer whiz or anyone else with a vested
interest...I am just a former philosopher and current woodworker who
has found THIS group one of the most useful anywhere. I have read it
and commented 'occasionally' for 5-6 years.

I guess I will still browse, but I sure hope some of you back off from
that "anything is ok if it don't cost me money" attitude, because
warez fits THAT definition.

ok...that's my take.....back to the edge of the shadows...

 

[jo]

I am a member of as online folk music group with an 'open'
discussion board, and naturally, people pop in who hate limits &
definitions that restrict THEIR idea of a good song or topic, even if
it is rock & roll....and discussions like this ensue.

Folkies have always been fervent arguers... look at Dylan at the Albert
Hall; June Tabor and the Oyster Band

 

[Bob Adkins]

I guess I will still browse, but I sure hope some of you back off from
that "anything is ok if it don't cost me money" attitude, because
warez fits THAT definition.

If my aunt had hair on her chest, she would be my uncle.

All I'm saying is that people's needs and attitudes are so varied that any
definition will be arbitrary. The only common denominator is that the
software is listed by the author as FREE.

Warez are not listed by the author as free.

-- Bob

 

[Bill Day]

If my aunt had hair on her chest, she would be my uncle.

All I'm saying is that people's needs and attitudes are so varied that any
definition will be arbitrary. The only common denominator is that the
software is listed by the author as FREE.

Warez are not listed by the author as free.

-- Bob

agreed...that is what SHOULD be the definition...If the author says it
is totally free, except for a nudge to send him a poscard or hug a
tree, it is fine...but after that, any constraints have moved it out
of the freeware realm.
When I was a philosopher, I studied the 'definition of
definitions'...and what aspects are arbitrary. People can say "well,
MY definition is..XXX", but they end up with definitions that are so
broad as to be almost useless. I have tried to explain to the folk
music crowd that if they allow just anything in, they might as well
just call it 'music'....and then wonder why they can't find what they
wan't in the bins at the record store.

ah, well.....all we can do is plead for reason...

 

[Bill Day]

Folkies have always been fervent arguers... look at Dylan at the Albert
Hall; June Tabor and the Oyster Band

and Big Bill Broonzy said "I never heard a horse sing, so it must be
folk music"...and that inane comment gets trotted out every few
months!