Robin Hood and freeware

[Franklin]

What's this Robin Hood in the subject all about?

You're probably busy and don't have time to read worthless rants
to a.c.f. In a nutshell, this post explains what makes me
ANNOYED, REALLY ANNOYED and SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED;

I mention how SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED sparks off my Robin Hood mode
and how I'm interested to know if others respond like me.

That's the summary.

If it's not for you then move on. That's OK; I don't want to make
you waste your time.

========================

SHAREWARE

I tend to think of "shareware" as being shared either for a
nominal charge (say $5) or for no charge (a sort of freeware).

So I get ANNOYED when I come across "shareware" which is really
commercial software being licensed at full commercial prices of
perhaps $30 or $40 perhaps.

In this case I'm annoyed at the marketing hype but life's like
that and I kind of accept it and live with it.

FREEWARE

Now I get REALLY annoyed when something calls itself "freeware"
and it's free to download but after a trial period it must be paid
for.

Somewhere on the download web site or on the author's web site it
will tell you that this is deal. Sometimes that info is there
openly openly and sometimes that info is hidden in an obscure
corner. This is not freeware at all.

In rare cases the pay-after-trial info is completely missing.
It's not in the web site and it's not readily visible in the
installation screens. And this gets me SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED.
This pushes marketing hype too far.

I don't know where you live but the law around here says that a
verbal contract is as good as a paper contract although proving a
verbal contract is often hard. Well, I feel a bit like that: the
web site says, "Here mate, have some freeware" and I say "Yes,
OK" and I take it and it turns out not to be free. Whoa! "You
said it was free". No reply. "Well the obtaining is free but the
usage is chargeable." Right. etc.

You can see what I am getting at. In this case the big question
is ...

If one took all the reasonable steps to inform
oneself of the software's status and it was
clearly provided as "freeware" with no conditions
then wouldn't one feel SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED?
Now it's a matter of falsely supplying software.

Legally, maybe the case is one of misselling. And I might seek
costs for the time it took me to install and check out the
software plus costs for using my hardware and system software.

Excuse me a moment ... http://tinyurl.com/ahrbm. Puts on hat.

Am I morally justified in taking this so-called "freeware" and
cracking it and then using it? This might be seen as a whole lot
more of a practical solution than visiting the law courts over
such a thing.

It's sort of a Robin Hood moral solution but with the difference
that one is not taking from the exploitative rich to give to the
poor but from exploitative software con merchants to give to those
they tried to scam.

What do you think?

 

[El Bandolero]

Il Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:25:18 GMT, Franklin ha scritto:

What do you think?

I totally agree
I morally justify also to crack a famous 10,000$ CAD software if I use it
at home to draw sketches to make my daughter coloring...

Did you know that to use Wordstar (even 2.x versions) you have to buy a
(expensive) licence?

Do you know that Borland, for instance, gives free licenses for old
versions of Delphi, Turbo Pascal etc etc?

 

[none]

snip of rant......

Why is it that you expect software to be free?

just curious,

Bob S.

 

[L.M]

snip of rant......

Why is it that you expect software to be free?

Hey, I want a free Ferrari.

 

[Anonymous]

It's sort of a Robin Hood moral solution but with the difference

that...

You have a noble purpose, but there are other differences in the
medieval myth that are not considered in your plan:

* Robin of Loxley had a large group of well-armed men assembled in
Sherwood Forest who were committed to his cause and willing to fight
and die to protect Robin from the arrest warrants issued by the Sheriff
of Nottingham and the troops that routinely searched the woods. Would
you have similar protection from the police and the courts in your
area?

* Robin had to give up everything he owned and go live in Sherwood away
from the world he knew and cared about. The quality-of-life of a
committed seditionist tends to drop to about the same level as the
urban disenfranchised homeless population. Robin and his men were
always on the run and always looking over their shoulders for pursuers,
even though they were doing the right thing and they were heroes. Robin
lived like a hunted man because he WAS a hunted man. You have to decide
how much of your life you are willing to give up for your cause.

* The story of Loxley had a built-in end-game strategy. Robin only had
to fight the Sheriff of Nottingham long enough for King Richard to
return from the Crusades and make everything right in England again.
There is no King and Cavalry riding over the hill to save you at some
point in the future. Your plan might have you pursued by lawyers and
police for the rest of your life while the bad guys get rich and famous
and use your name as an example to other potential "Robin Hood"
wannabees in the future.

I've known lots of good and honest people who tried to do the Robin
Hood thing with high-quality motives and holy intentions---and they are
either in jail now or still paying restitution to the bad guys. Some of
those bad guys deserve the ultimate punishment for their crimes but the
laws and the courts are all controlled by money and power that the
good, righteous and noble people do not have.

Knowledge is not power. Money is power. Knowledge is the key to get
more money.

(In other words: George Soros can make more radically-rebellious
changes with his checkbook than Robin Hood could make in his entire
life with a quiver of arrows.)

Visit www.piratebay.org. It is a website for Robin Hoods.

PS: Shouldn't this entire message-thread be in an appz or a warez
newsgroup?

 

[Bernard Peek]

SHAREWARE

I tend to think of "shareware" as being shared either for a
nominal charge (say $5) or for no charge (a sort of freeware).

So I get ANNOYED when I come across "shareware" which is really
commercial software being licensed at full commercial prices of
perhaps $30 or $40 perhaps.

You don't know much about shareware, do you?

 

[Whirled Peas]

Hey, I want a free Ferrari.

You'll have to download the source and then compile it with one of the
following options:
../configure --red
../configure --yellow
../configure --black

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

SHAREWARE

I tend to think of "shareware" as being shared either for a
nominal charge (say $5) or for no charge (a sort of freeware).
So I get ANNOYED when I come across "shareware" which is really
commercial software being licensed at full commercial prices of
perhaps $30 or $40 perhaps.

The keyword is "I tend to think". Why should we care about your opinion
of what is the reasonable price for a shareware application?

Shareware is commercial software. Shareware is not another kind of
software, is is a distribution method. So shareware can cost from one
dollar to several thousand dollars, and still be shareware.

FREEWARE

Now I get REALLY annoyed when something calls itself "freeware"
and it's free to download but after a trial period it must be paid
for.

Somewhere on the download web site or on the author's web site it
will tell you that this is deal. Sometimes that info is there
openly openly and sometimes that info is hidden in an obscure
corner. This is not freeware at all.

In rare cases the pay-after-trial info is completely missing.
It's not in the web site and it's not readily visible in the
installation screens. And this gets me SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED.
This pushes marketing hype too far.

Can you give examples of sites who say theire software is freeware when
it is not? Sure you don't confuse it with all they who say "free to try"
and "free to download"? Oops: I don't need examples of adware/spyware
beeing presented as freeware, that's another issue.

Harsh statements must be verified with examples...


regards from

--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway

http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, Freeware Solitaire, My fishy site (fishing
games), a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[Franklin]

You write some interesting things about Robin Hood. My knowledge
of the man is improved!

PS: Shouldn't this entire message-thread be in an appz or
a warez newsgroup?

No I don't think this belongs in a crackz or serialz group because
the premise I make for cracking some very specific software is the
misinformation (or more correctly the withholding of information)
which led one to genuinely think it was freeware at the time one
took it and installed it.

In other words it was fake freeware. That's why I posted to this
group.

Some my make no response to being given a pig in a poke but I am
suggesting that a morally-justified rememdy might be to crack it
and use it in the way one believed that it was being supplied.

Of course one could disingenuously say that I thought this and
that and the other were freeware but I have made it clear that the
user would have taken all reasonable steps to check the status of
the software. I am thinking of cases where the supplier
deliberately hides the fact that the putative freeware is actually
software to be paid for.

 

[Franklin]

You don't know much about shareware, do you?

Bernard, what is it I don;t know about shareware that you are
thinking of?

I can't think you are saying that there was never a time in the
early days when shareware was software shared at a nominal charge?

Have a look at these Google definitions which refer to a "small
fee" or to honoring the author's request to pay.
http://tinyurl.com/bgppa

The term "shareware" has evolved into being bent into today's
meaning of fully commerical software. The next thing you know is
Microsoft Office will be called shareware!

 

[Franklin]

The keyword is "I tend to think". Why should we care about your
opinion of what is the reasonable price for a shareware
application?

Shareware is commercial software. Shareware is not another kind
of software, is is a distribution method. So shareware can cost
from one dollar to several thousand dollars, and still be
shareware.

See what I wrote to Bernard:

I can't think you are saying that there was never a time in the
early days when shareware was software shared at a nominal charge?

Have a look at these Google definitions which refer to a "small
fee" or to honoring the author's request to pay.
http://tinyurl.com/bgppa

The term "shareware" has evolved into being bent into today's
meaning of fully commerical software. The next thing you know is
Microsoft Office will be called shareware!

Can you give examples of sites who say theire software is
freeware when it is not? Sure you don't confuse it with all they
who say "free to try" and "free to download"? Oops: I don't need
examples of adware/spyware beeing presented as freeware, that's
another issue.

Harsh statements must be verified with examples...

No I am not confusing any of those nnn-wares with a claim to be
freeware. John Corliss went through all that in his detailed posting
a few weeks ago when he made his prediction for the future of
freeware.

 

[Anonymous]

Franklin brought next idea :

You write some interesting things about Robin Hood. My knowledge
of the man is improved!

Thank you. I chose to expound on your Robin Hood theme because I
actually believe that you have some valid points and considerable
arguments. My only concern is that I have known Robin Hoods before---I
used to be one---and many of them are in big trouble now because they
didn't have the money, power and political capital to defend their
themselves when the police and the lawyers arrived. They were
right---and they lost. I just didn't want to see that happen to you. I
think you're right---I just don't want to see another good man get into
trouble for doing the right thing.

No I don't think this belongs in a crackz or serialz group because
the premise I make for cracking some very specific software is the
misinformation (or more correctly the withholding of information)
which led one to genuinely think it was freeware at the time one
took it and installed it.

In other words it was fake freeware. That's why I posted to this
group.

Forgive me, I did not articulate my meaning correctly. I did not mean
to say that your message was off-topic to this group.

What I meant to say was this: If you post this (or similar messages) in
appz or warez newsgroups, then you might locate kindred spirits who
feel as stongly or more strongly than you do about the subject. You
could find people there who are willing to help you in your quest or do
it for you. You may find more willing allies in an appz or warez
newsgroup than you would find in a freeware or shareware newsgroup.

Take care.

 

[Ron May]

What's this Robin Hood in the subject all about?
(snipped)

What do you think?

I don't think I've ever downloaded anything that said "freeware" at an
author's website that turned out to be "shareware." (Note the key
phrase "at an author's website.")

Sometimes old links will lead to software that was freeware "once upon
a time" but has since gone $$$ware. Hence you often see a link posted
here as "Last Freeware Version" (This is just one of many reasons not
to blindly use a direct download link without doing some checking
first.)

I see "Free Download" all the time, but that's a virtual guarantee
there's a "gotcha" in there somewhere, and I won't even consider
downloading it until I know what the catch is.

I'm curious. What program (or programs) are you talking about? Can
you give an example or two?

 

[Bernard Peek]

Bernard, what is it I don;t know about shareware that you are
thinking of?

I can't think you are saying that there was never a time in the
early days when shareware was software shared at a nominal charge?

The first shareware I used was written for DOS, Windows didn't exist.
Some shareware was sold at 'nominal' charge but most of it was sold at
commercial prices, although often lower than equivalent shrink-wrapped
software.

Your idea that shareware was always sold at nominal prices is
wishful-thinking. There's a difference between 'a small fee' and
'nominal price.'

Shareware was sold for a small fee, a shareware word-processor might
only cost $199 instead of the much higher price that WordPerfect charged
for its product. In today's currency that 'small fee' would be around
$1,000. Software prices have fallen a long ways since I started using
shareware.

Have a look at these Google definitions which refer to a "small
fee" or to honoring the author's request to pay.
http://tinyurl.com/bgppa

One of those definitions says that shareware is usually free. It has
never been free. One common characteristic of shareware is that it is
low-cost, but prices are always, and have always been, commercial. Those
definitions are confused, confusing or just plain wrong.

The term "shareware" has evolved into being bent into today's
meaning of fully commerical software. The next thing you know is
Microsoft Office will be called shareware!

Nope. Shareware has always been commercially priced. But it was usually
lower in price than shrink-wrapped software sold by dealers. The price
has nothing at all to do with the license arrangements.

I have absolutely no problem with someone who charges $1,000 or even
$10,000 for a shareware program. If they can persuade their customers to
pay that much then their software has to be worth it.

 

[prospero33]

On the matter of contracts: It's true that oral contracts are perfectly
valid, though maybe more difficult to verify than written ones.
However, one of the principal elements of any contract is
consideration, which means that the one who receives something must
agree to give something back. A recipient of freeware gives nothing (by
definition), and so there is no contract.

 

[prospero33]

I'm sorry that you're annoyed, really annoyed, and super-annoyed, but
I'm often annoyed and I keep it to myself.

 

[prospero33]

Actually, you seem to be a garden-variety crook, one who compounds
his/her villainy by offering a patina of righteousness.

 

[Al Klein]

Actually, you seem to be a garden-variety crook, one who compounds
his/her villainy by offering a patina of righteousness.

It would be nice if you quoted some of what you were referring to, so
people had some idea of what you were talking about.

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

See what I wrote to Bernard:

I can't think you are saying that there was never a time in the
early days when shareware was software shared at a nominal charge?

Have a look at these Google definitions which refer to a "small
fee" or to honoring the author's request to pay.
http://tinyurl.com/bgppa

To google for a definition we all can do, and get several different
meanings. More good definitions is available here:

http://www.asp-shareware.org/users/about-shareware.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware

The term "shareware" has evolved into being bent into today's
meaning of fully commerical software.

You have seen the light! The term has evolved, so stop "I tend to
think..."

It's no more difficult than that. And to remember: shareware is just the
distribution form some commercial software use.

No I am not confusing any of those nnn-wares with a claim to be
freeware. John Corliss went through all that in his detailed posting
a few weeks ago when he made his prediction for the future of
freeware.

Sorry, I don't see an answer to my question here.

regards from vegard

--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway

http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, Freeware Solitaire, My fishy site (fishing
games), a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------

 

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

It would be nice if you quoted some of what you were referring to, so
people had some idea of what you were talking about.

Google's poor interface makes it counterintuitive to quote properly,
but it can be done pretty easily once one knows how.

<http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

Course, the better solution is to use an actual newsreading client.