FYI to ACF participants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you Susan. :)
 
Susan said:
Any questions or comments?
Click to expand...

There have been quite a few. A brief recap/ status report:

1. A software author emailed a request for removal of a program
description on the grounds that it was no longer freeware.
2. I replied "our web pages show the last free version" and posted my
reply here.
3. The author replied to that email with a revised request (remove the
link).
4. My reply to that second email asked him to post his request here for
discussion (the reply included a copy of the post I made to ACF).

If the author does post a request here we can discuss it (and take a
poll if that seems indicated). IMO if the author does not post a request
in alt.comp.freeware his emailed request(s) should be ignored.

In the future I think my *FIRST* reply to an email of this type
should/will be an informational response along these lines: The author
should post his request in the newsgroup as that is where the decision
making power resides.

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 said:
In the future I think my *FIRST* reply to an email of this type
should/will be an informational response along these lines: The author
should post his request in the newsgroup as that is where the decision
making power resides.

Susan
Click to expand...

Susan, let's make something like this (or similar) the "automagic"
response for the future. That way, the burden of moving forward is
placed squarely on the acf /community/ where it belongs. The last thing
that should happen is for the acf liaison to be targeted as "point man."

-Craig
 
Craig said:
Susan Bugher wrote:
Click to expand...
Susan, let's make something like this (or similar) the "automagic"
response for the future. That way, the burden of moving forward is
placed squarely on the acf /community/ where it belongs. The last thing
that should happen is for the acf liaison to be targeted as "point man."
Click to expand...

Yup - that's what I was *trying* to say. ;) That's the way I should have
done it this time. That's the way I *intend* to do it in the future.

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 said:
Yup - that's what I was *trying* to say. ;) That's the way I should have
done it this time. That's the way I *intend* to do it in the future.

Susan
--
Click to expand...

Let's hope this is a one-time problem.
 
There have been quite a few. A brief recap/ status report:

1. A software author emailed a request for removal of a program
description on the grounds that it was no longer freeware.
2. I replied "our web pages show the last free version" and posted
my reply here.
3. The author replied to that email with a revised request (remove
the link).
4. My reply to that second email asked him to post his request
here for discussion (the reply included a copy of the post I made
to ACF).
Click to expand...

And it appears that he has not posted here thus far.


If the author does post a request here we can discuss it (and take
a poll if that seems indicated). IMO if the author does not post a
request in alt.comp.freeware his emailed request(s) should be
ignored.
Click to expand...

After some thinking about this some more, I'm inclined to agree with
the above. Unless the author authenicates himself by making the request
here, or starts sending lawyers etc, then ignore.


In the future I think my *FIRST* reply to an email of this type
should/will be an informational response along these lines: The
author should post his request in the newsgroup as that is where
the decision making power resides.
Click to expand...

A very good idea.
 
Susan said:
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
Click to expand...

The new version is not freeware but that does not mean that the older
one changes it's license too. The new license only applies to the new
product. You should maintain the older version of program for
distribution if it was license as freeware.

Who is author of the program and what is the program's name?
 
IMO if the author does not post a request
in alt.comp.freeware his emailed request(s) should be ignored.
Agreed.

In the future I think my *FIRST* reply to an email of this type
should/will be an informational response along these lines: The author
should post his request in the newsgroup as that is where the decision
making power resides.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan. :)
 
And it appears that he has not posted here thus far.
Click to expand...

I have not seen a post yet either. I thought there should be a statement
in this thread about what will happen if the author doesn't post a
request - just as a wrap-up to the thread.
After some thinking about this some more, I'm inclined to agree with
the above. Unless the author authenicates himself by making the request
here, or starts sending lawyers etc, then ignore.
Click to expand...

I did tell the author that *decisions* were made in the newsgroup. I
also did a rough tally - to date "make no changes" is preferred by a 2
to 1 margin over other suggestions. ISTM that's clearly our course of
action in the absence of a posted request from the author. If no
objections are posted I'll assume we have a plan.

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 <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
The question is how do we want to handle this request and similar
requests (if any) in the future. Policy decisions are *group* decisions.
Click to expand...

2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of the
SOFTWARE as you wish; give exact copies of the original SOFTWARE to
anyone; and distribute the SOFTWARE in its unmodified form via
electronic means (Internet, BBS's, Shareware distribution libraries,
CD-ROMs, etc.).

You may charge a distribution fee for the package, but you must not
represent in any way that you are selling the SOFTWARE itself. Your
distribution of the SOFTWARE will not entitle you to any compensation
from the Auhtor. You must distribute a copy of this EULA with any
copy of the SOFTWARE and anyone to whom you distribute the SOFTWARE is
subject to this EULA.
 
»Q« said:
I'm surprised by the name-calling. He's only made a request, not a
demand or a threat.
Click to expand...

I reckon it's a daft thing even to ask for, given the original EULA. He has not "only made a request" - he wrote the terms of the
original EULA too. (Nothing personal, though: just an observation of general *anonymous* bozoishness.)

EDEB.
 
EDEB said:
Very democratic. One mob one vote!
Click to expand...

Check the archives and you may feel differently. A while back an author
asked people in ACF to stop posting a link to one version of a program
(the apparent LFW version). The author made a polite request - it was an
unusual set of circumstances - IIRC *ALL* those who responded felt that
the author's request should be honored. Authors may or may not get the
answer they want to hear but IMO they *will* get a fair hearing.

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)
 
I did tell the author that *decisions* were made in the newsgroup. I
also did a rough tally - to date "make no changes" is preferred by a 2
to 1 margin over other suggestions. ISTM that's clearly our course of
action in the absence of a posted request from the author. If no
objections are posted I'll assume we have a plan.
Click to expand...

If he does nothing we do nothing. Sounds good to me.
 
Check the archives and you may feel differently. A while back an author
asked people in ACF to stop posting a link to one version of a program
(the apparent LFW version). The author made a polite request - it was an
unusual set of circumstances - IIRC *ALL* those who responded felt that
the author's request should be honored. Authors may or may not get the
answer they want to hear but IMO they *will* get a fair hearing.

Susan
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have added a tongue-in-cheek indicator:

*<;o)

EDEB.
 
FirstName said:
Who is author of the program and what is the program's name?
Click to expand...

I've told the author decisions are made by ACF participants and asked
him to post his request in ACF for discussion. If the author decides to
pursue the request he'll identify himself.

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)
 
Back
Top