[PL] acf Ware Glossary

[Susan Bugher]

re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.

I propose the immediate removal of the "Adware 2." clause from the acf
Ware Glossary. This will give us closure on the Adware issue as it
relates to PL2004.

I propose we have a full discussion about Ware Types in January 2005:

1. Opinion poll: Wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable for discussion
in the newsgroup, wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable as PL selections.

2. Review/ revision of the acf Ware Glossary. This would include
discussion of a new ware type (Brandedware, Logoware or whatever) as a
replacement for the "Adware 2." clause.

3. Review/ revision of acceptable/ unacceptable ware types for PL2006.

Are there any objections to this course of action?

Susan

 

[*ProteanThread*]

re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.

so what is the difference between adware 1 and adware 2 ? why not just
combine the two and make adware 3 ?

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.

I propose the immediate removal of the "Adware 2." clause from the acf
Ware Glossary. This will give us closure on the Adware issue as it
relates to PL2004.

I propose we have a full discussion about Ware Types in January 2005:

1. Opinion poll: Wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable for discussion
in the newsgroup, wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable as PL selections.

2. Review/ revision of the acf Ware Glossary. This would include
discussion of a new ware type (Brandedware, Logoware or whatever) as a
replacement for the "Adware 2." clause.

3. Review/ revision of acceptable/ unacceptable ware types for PL2006.

Are there any objections to this course of action?

Sounds good to me.

 

[Garrett]

Adware in any form shouldn't even be thought of as freeware....
Hehehehee.... But then again, I'm extreme in my opinion of what freeware
is, so I expect a lot of people to not agree with what I say on Adware
stuff.

-Garrett

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Omar=A9?=]

Sounds good to me.

Ditto
Omar