FYI to ACF participants

[bard of avalon]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your
listing."

First, is this a legit email from the actual author and can you verify that?

Second, why do you treat us (acf members) like a 2 year old who doesn't
'need' to know that grandma suffered a stroke and is in the hospital dying!
What is the software?

Third, is it a piece of freeware that members here helped the author develop
over the years by being his/her test agents and reporting back agents, etc?

Fourth, the version on PWH is freeware, isn't it?

the bard

 

[Lou]

After reading the entire thread up to this time, it seems to me that
the reasonable thing to do would be to flag the PWH listing of the
program. The listing could be flagged saying that the linked site has
requested not to be regarded as freeware. Since the author has
requested this, why not grant the request and be 'good netizens'?

Also have read the whole thread to this point.

First: Susan you are a class act! Congratulations!
Second: How strongly does the author feel? Is a newer version an
improvement?
Third: If the author really wants it removed from freeware status I
think you should if only because the author might issue an update with
malware inserted.
Also, not removing the item might discourage new authors.

It is NOT an easy call.

Lou

 

[bambam]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I would definitely not remove the program, and I think you should tell us
what program we are discussing.

 

[Vic Dura]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Good response.

 

[Dewey Edwards]

Please note: I'm trying to keep my opinions to myself and give others a
chance to speak their piece. . . but. . .

AFAIK there's nothing of questionable legality on the PWH home site. IOW
- I'm not seeking exoneration. I posted the EULA as a point of information.

Think I'll play devil's advocate. How is the PWH listing covered by
the "DISTRIBUTION" clause? You are NOT providing an exact copy (or
for that matter, any copy) of the program in question. You are
providing a link to a third party's copy of the software. And, since
here I must guess, you have probably not performed due diligence in
determining that the third party is meeting the conditions of the EULA
- how could you have time for all those listings.

<Takes off red cape>

Rather than just relying on the EULA, here, I think our common sense
should have great weight. Although links aren't mentioned in the
EULA, they should be inferred. No mention is made about how prominent
this program's listing is at PWH. If the program is currently on the
PL, I'd recommend honoring the auithor's wishes, and pull that
listing. If it's within the "Some of the programs that have been
mentioned in the alt.comp.freeware newsgroup" section, I think its
imperitive that the link stays (of course flagged as another poster
mentioned). I see a journalistic quality to this section. You are
reporting information found in the newsgroup. You are not being
asked to make a retraction of a mistake made by you, but of a mistake
the author feels he made. That doesn't happen in journalism. Use
both sides of the story, the link and the flag.

My 4 cents (yeah, devil gets half)

 

[David Gilbert]

Susan,
have you contacted the site hosting/distributing the file.
Have they had any contact from the author? If so what is their view.
It would be difficult for them not to comply with the EULA as it seems
quite open.
I believe that the link should remain.

 

[David Cox]

(Edited by me for brevity - r.m.)



I think that pretty much settles the issue. Keep the link.

I agree with Ron on this one, keep the link.

David

 

[CJ Jones]

The question is how do we want to handle this request and similar
requests (if any) in the future. Policy decisions are *group* decisions.

Susan

I think keeping a simple statement on each download page. (yep, each
one), that some of the software is the last known freeware version, or
something of that ilk should work fine.

As far as the person who emailed you... I suppose you'll get a response
from him/her saying that the coding or somesuch is what s/he is
concerned about. The point is, you host a freeware site, and as far as
any other versions of the software existing, you can always post that
the most current version is now shareware/payware, and offer a link to
that. This should ease any programmer's mind... it certainly would ease
mine!

CJ

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Susan,

What is the name of the program? Perhaps one or more of us should
download it and post it on freeware sites (as the last freeware
version) before it has a chance to disappear forever.

Thanks!

 

[Susan Bugher]

I would definitely not remove the program, and I think you should tell us
what program we are discussing.

I've emailed the author and asked him to post his request here in
alt.comp.freeware. Hind sight is 20-20. I should have done that in
the first place so we ALL had ALL the information to begin with.

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]

Think I'll play devil's advocate. How is the PWH listing covered by
the "DISTRIBUTION" clause? You are NOT providing an exact copy (or
for that matter, any copy) of the program in question. You are
providing a link to a third party's copy of the software. And, since
here I must guess, you have probably not performed due diligence in
determining that the third party is meeting the conditions of the EULA
- how could you have time for all those listings.

Your guess is correct. If we host a program or make it available on a PL
CD it is our responsibility to ensure that we have the right to do that.
Others have the same responsibility. I don't investigate host sites that
offer a program for download. IMO the presumption is that they are
acting legally. If that presumption is challenged and evidence to the
contrary is presented then I think we should investigate (or remove the
link). IOW innocent until proven guilty. . .

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)

 

[jimpgh2002]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan

The version of the software cited on Pricelessware IS
freeware.
I see no obligation to remove it just because a newer version
is not freeware.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Susan Bugher wrote:

If it is an expressed wish from an author to no longer (contrary to
earlier expressed wishes) regard his/her release(s) of some version(s)
of his/her software as freeware, then yes, don't mark it or list it or
make it available for download as freeware.

Agreed. Not for legal reasons though. If people use his/her freeware
program then they may decide to update to the payware version.

Do we want to help someone who is going out of their way to be
unhelpful ? Though the freeware version could be mentioned here
I suggest it be removed from future PL votes, CDs, etc.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

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

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

ISTM the main goal of the pricelesswarehome program listings is to help
users find freeware, so that listing should remain.

 

[jacaranda]

If an author can show in the EULA associated with the "last free
version" link that there is some clause that limits redistribution in
some way, or grants the author the option to modify the EULA at her or
his discretion, then the ethical thing to do would be to remove the
link from PWH. In practical terms, though, I think the author really
would need to pose that type of argument to the one HOSTING the
download, and not PWH.

If the author CAN'T show that the EULA in a particular distribution
prohibits someone else from hosting, downloading and/or using the
software as freeware, then the author's options are pretty much
limited to modifying the EULA in any NEW distribution.

I totally agree. I also suggest that Susan give the author the link to
this thread to show that she in good faith went to the trouble to get other
opionons on this. He'll see for himself that many smart minds do not view
his stance as legally supportable.

 

[EDEB]

You might add a note that the author "strenuously objects", while

maintaining the download link, and leave the decision to the gentle
reader. As for a willingness to cooperate with authors who distribute
freeware with no restrictions, and then change their minds, and seek to
block that distribution, which of these authorial moods are more
deserving of our cooperation? Absolute integrity cuts both ways.

I'm with Tom.

Anyone making freeware available should know what they are doing.

It is NOBODY's RIGHT to demand the imposition of a waived copy protection. That's not how the right works. If something is free,
and it's being used by people, then it's theirs.

I wouldn't give someone a bunch of bricks for free and ask for them back once they'd stuck them into a wall, or even once they'd
planned to stick them into a wall. Intellectual property rights are different from other rights, in that they have to have a
protection conferred on them, rather than having an obvious right in and of themselves, but once it is conferred, it has to be as
permanent a protection as the law will allow, and that cuts both ways. To my mind, wanting to have his cake and eat it is what
makes the request unreasonable.

EDEB.

 

[EDEB]

Also, not removing the item might discourage new authors.
Why? New authors could be sensible, and write better EULAs. This bozo deserves to have his programme downloaded for eternity, and
may he learn a lesson from it. FREE = FREE. If you give something away for nothing, then it stays away. Duh.

EDEB.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I think keeping a simple statement on each download page. (yep, each
one), that some of the software is the last known freeware version, or
something of that ilk should work fine.

We're already doing that. On the PL pages it's spelled out in the
description of the app. On the ACF pages if an app has become $ware the
version we show is marked "LFW". Notes on each ACF program info page
explain what that means - for example:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_BUSINESS-HOME.php#notes

<q>
Column W notes ware status changes:
LFW = last freeware version (the program has been abandoned or
discontinued or become $ware).

As far as the person who emailed you... I suppose you'll get a response
from him/her saying that the coding or somesuch is what s/he is
concerned about. The point is, you host a freeware site, and as far as
any other versions of the software existing, you can always post that
the most current version is now shareware/payware, and offer a link to
that. This should ease any programmer's mind... it certainly would ease
mine!

On the Pricelessware pages we do show a link to the author's $ware home
page (if there is one). For example Push That Freakin' Button (PTFB):
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2006/PL2006DESKTOP.php#0594-PW

That would be difficult to do on the ACF program info pages. There's
only provision for one link per app.

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)

 

[EDEB]

I think keeping a simple statement on each download page. (yep, each
one), that some of the software is the last known freeware version, or
something of that ilk should work fine.

Doesn't that already happen?

EDEB

 

[Susan Bugher]

<snip> I also suggest that Susan give the author the link to
this thread <snip>

I've done that (sent him a copy of my first post in this thread).

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)