Screenshot Captor: A New Definition for Freeware

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob Adkins
  • Start date Start date
f0dder said:
It's quite annoying if you don't want to take advantage of the forums (a
real shame, but if you're reaææ busy it's quite understandable; usenet takes
some time :))


If any other people experience this, *please* report to this newsgroup! I
personally think this must have been a one-time error, but if anybody else
have experienced it, I'd like to see it!


You don't need to be a beggar, a simple "Hi mouser I don't want to donate
please give me a key" should be fine enough :). If that didn't work, please
post here so you can nag mouser.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Post here?? So now this is Alt.Com.NAG?????
Hummmmmmmmmmmm
Omar
 
John said:
I also emailed mouser on 10/12/05 pointing out that I couldn't afford
to donate at this time. I don't appear to have got a free licence or
any reply at all to that.
Click to expand...

john, i sent you a reply to your email *2 hours* after i received it.

not only did i send you a non-expiring license key in my reply but i
wrote quite a bit as well.

if you like i will resend it and with your permission i will post here
your original email and my original reply.

maybe you can check again and see if you can find the email to you,
because it never bounced back.
if you contact me again i can remind you about the email address it
went to, etc.
 
I don't actually have to repost John's email to me - it just said that
he would not be donating at this time. here is the reply i sent 2
hours later. i don't always write this much but i do try to talk to
everyone who writes me:

--------------------------------------
well - i'm in a similar situation. i'm actually not a fan of
capitalism and the culture of greed in the united states these days.
i could go on for pages but i'll spare you and spare myself getting
worked up again.

it's actually a little painful for me to have to spend so
much time advocating for donations when my preference would be to not
have to deal with the issue of money ever again in my life; my problem
is i spent long enough not giving money a 2nd thought that i find
myself having to ask for some or else not be able to pay my school
loans and bills. the ironic thing is that in my determination to
keep my programs available to everyone even those who cannot afford to
donate, i have to spend more time "talking" about money, in the sense
of trying to advocate for people donating.

but you know i really am interested in setting an example that
donationware approach can be a viable alternative to
shareware/commercialware. i really do believe that for digital media,
if we can all get ourselves in the mindset of donating when we like
something, an amount that we feel is right and affordable, that the
world would be a better place. i.e. donating for music, software,
etc. i think it could make open source much more viable in terms of a
way programmers and musicians could make enough to survive and do
their art, etc.

anyway, enough rambling :)

Non-expiring license key for .....
[details removed from this usenet repost]
....
take care,
-mouser
(e-mail address removed)
------------------------------------------------------
 
Susan said:
It's disheartening to see so many posts saying Freeware is any
software that's free because. . .

For weeks now I've been working on filling in the missing ware
descriptions on the ACF pages (only a few hundred more to go). If
anyone *likes* those detailed ware descriptions please speak up. I
need some encouragement. . .

Susan
Click to expand...

Hang in there, girl. You know, if I see a wacky thread I will not read any
of it until I click on your post. Then I know everything is alright!! By
the way, Mr. Tramp post alot of shareware.

Keep up the good work you rock -of- freedom. Come on and rock me!!

--

Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.

___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales

Ellis_Jay
 
Steve said:
Thank you very much for your dedication!
Click to expand...

Damn! Now that's TOO polite!! You could have said how much you wanted in
her pants!!

Jes' kidding, Susan.

--

Let the unseen day be. Today is more than enough.

___Sador the carpenter to Turin
Tolkien, The Unfinished Tales

Ellis_Jay
 
[Joerg Toellner]
Yes i have spoken to Mouser he is a very nice guy we found out he and I
'we are two-birds of the same feather. And a good friend!.
And I donated to his site.

Not because I had too but because I wanted too.

I think you mis-understood what I said.
 
mouser said:
...
take care,
-mouser
(e-mail address removed)
------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...



Hi Mouser!


Just go on. Your comments and theories are very refreshing.

Unfortunately, the most high-tec 'homo' had already died out, remaining
some long long ago mixed individuals. Well, what I want to say is, the
south-ape is dominating the world-happenings today. She is not
technically inclined but can make art, and can foresee many things,
probably due to the art-inclined thinking.
Although, the most of this art-thinking today, turns out to be shit, or
even dangerous for other life. E.g. look what the Morons (spritualized
race, out of the south-ape formerly) do, (NSA etc...)

But even the technically inclined morons (certainly imagined - hehe)
cannot stop to use their natural strength/advantage, namely the forward
shitting into the future.

So I would not get angry about some idiots. They prove themself wrong
after a while... if not getting radical before, unfortunately ;-(




Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
one of the struggles we have on the site is information overload..
but i will try to add a clear link on all of the donation pages and
license key page, that takes people to a page explaining in more detail
the approach to donations, and the remind them they can donate any
amount, or send in any kind of other donation (paintings, chocolate,
knitted cat booties, etc., or even an email saying that they have
concluded they are not going to donate.
 
Btw I felt quite nagged when I first tried the DC programs - but being on
the IRC channel and thinking "Oh well, it's free after all" helped a lot :)
Click to expand...


Ya, I know what you mean. It's something like the "Stockholm Syndrome" :)
 
Thanks. Where is that stated on the site ?
Click to expand...

That's a classic symptom that mouser's registration is too complicated. I
don't question his product or his motives at all. My complaint is all the
reading and analysis you have to do. The first impression of new users has
to be one of suspicion... like the "fine print" on a contract or warranty.
 
John Fitzsimons wrote:
Click to expand...
It's quite annoying if you don't want to take advantage of the forums (a
real shame, but if you're reaææ busy it's quite understandable; usenet takes
some time :))
Click to expand...

Usenet only takes up some of my time. Too much though ! :-)
If any other people experience this, *please* report to this newsgroup! I
personally think this must have been a one-time error, but if anybody else
have experienced it, I'd like to see it!
Click to expand...

I have since heard from mouser. It appears he did write but somehow I
didn't get it.
You don't need to be a beggar,
Click to expand...

A subjective opinion. If one hasn't got much money and one wants to
ask someone for something it is easy to feel like one.
a simple "Hi mouser I don't want to donate
please give me a key" should be fine enough :). If that didn't work, please
post here so you can nag mouser.
Click to expand...

No need. He sent me the registration.
Personally, which makes me quite subjective and opinionated, I've only had
good experiences with donationcoder.com and mouster.
Click to expand...

Mouser seems like a very nice guy. Hopefully, by now, pretty well
everyone here knows that. We aren't however talking about mouser. We
are talking about his "registration" process.

Regards, John.
 
Agree. :)

re Freeware and the definition thereof. . .

After a little Googling it appears that most definitions of Freeware
are either lame or *very* lame (Wikipedia). . .
Click to expand...

Well clearly if it isn't the same definitions as the ones we come up with
and modify on a yearly basis on this group , it's lame. :)

Seriously, these definitions games are a PR exercise, he who shouts
loudest wins.

The question is, how much influence does alt.comp.freeware have on the
rest of the net? I suspect the answer is "not enough".


Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
 
i certainly meant no disrespect by using the term "lay people", i just
meant people who aren't experts in the field of software terminology.
people who aren't familiar with all of the different terms in susan's
glossary,
Click to expand...

'Experts in the field of software terminology?' lol.

I suppose anyone by your definition , anyone who doesn't read this
newsgroup don't qualify as experts?
and who don't follow the debates about the definitition of
freeware.
Click to expand...

You mean don't follow the debates about the definition of freeware *HERE*
on alt.comp.freeware.

I guess we forgot to tell the important tech people who are opinion
leaders that
they need to subscribe and take part in software definition debates in an
obscure alt group to be qualified to talk about how to define software.
:)

Don't get me wrong, I mostly agree with our definitions, but we mustn't
get lost in our own self importance and lose sight of the fact that the
definitions (reasonable as they are to us) are just ours held by some
people on an obscure corner of the internet, and not some wide spread
widely accepted internet standard, that only the ignorant people disagree
with.







Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
 
FYI and to add to the discussion, the following is from the Univ of Miami School of Law:

Classification of software
In terms of copyright, there are four broad classifications of software:

a.. Commercial
b.. Shareware
c.. Freeware
d.. Public Domain
The restrictions and limitations regarding each classification are different.

Commercial
Commercial software represents the majority of software purchased from software publishers,
commercial computer stores, etc. When you buy software, you are actually acquiring a license to
use it, not own it. You acquire the license from the company that owns the copyright. The
conditions and restrictions of the license agreement vary from program to program and should be
read carefully. In general, commercial software licenses stipulate that

1.. the software is covered by copyright,
2.. although one archival copy of the software can be made, the backup copy cannot be used
except when the original package fails or is destroyed,
3.. modifications to the software are not allowed,
4.. decompiling (i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is not allowed without the
permission of the copyright holder, and
5.. development of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is not allowed without
the permission of the copyright holder.
Shareware
Shareware software is covered by copyright, as well. When you acquire software under a
shareware arrangement, you are actually acquiring a license to use it, not own it. You acquire
the license from the individual or company that owns the copyright. The conditions and
restrictions of the license agreement vary from program to program and should read carefully.
The copyright holders for shareware allow purchasers to make and distribute copies of the
software, but demand that if, after testing the software, you adopt it for use, you must pay
for it. In general, shareware software licenses stipulate that

1.. the software is covered by copyright,
2.. although one archival copy of the software can be made, the backup copy cannot be used
except when the original package fails or is destroyed,
3.. modifications to the software are not allowed,
4.. decompiling (i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is not allowed without the
permission of the copyright holder, and
5.. development of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is not allowed without
the permission of the copyright holder.
Selling software as shareware is a marketing decision; it does not change the legal
requirements with respect to copyright. That means that you can make a single archival copy,
but you are obliged to pay for all copies adopted for use.

Freeware
Freeware also is covered by copyright and subject to the conditions defined by the holder of
the copyright. The conditions for freeware are in direct opposition to normal copyright
restrictions. In general, freeware software licenses stipulate that

1.. the software is covered by copyright,
2.. copies of the software can be made for both archival and distribution purposes but that
distribution cannot be for profit,
3.. modifications to the software are allowed and encouraged,
4.. decompiling (i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is allowed without the
explicit permission of the copyright holder, and
5.. development of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is allowed and
encouraged with the condition that derivative works must also be designated as freeware. That
means that you cannot take freeware, modify or extend it, and then sell it as commercial or
shareware software.
Public domain
Public domain software comes into being when the original copyright holder explicitly
relinquishes all rights to the software. Since under current copyright law, all intellectual
works (including software) are protected as soon as they are committed to a medium, for
something to be public domain it must be clearly marked as such. Before March 1, 1989, it was
assumed that intellectual works were not covered by copyright unless the copyright symbol and
declaration appeared on the work. With the U.S. adherence to the Berne Convention this
presumption has been reversed. Now all works assume copyright protection unless the public
domain notification is stated. This means that for public domain software

1.. copyright rights have been relinquished,
2.. software copies can be made for both archival and distribution purposes with no
restrictions as to distribution,
3.. modifications to the software are allowed,
4.. decompiling (i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is allowed, and
5.. development of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is allowed without
conditions on the distribution or use of the derivative work.



Additional copies of this brochure may be purchased from EDUCOM:

1112 16th Street, NW -- Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036.
Telephone: (202) 872-4200.Although the brochure is copyrighted, EDUCOM and ITAA authorize and
encourage making and distributing copies of it, in whole or in part, providing the source is
acknowledged.

Copyright 2006, University of Miami School of Law. All Rights Reserved.
1311 Miller Drive, Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Tel. (305) 284-2339
 
Helen said:
.. Univ of Miami School of Law:

3.. modifications to the software are allowed and encouraged,
4.. decompiling (i.e. reverse engineering) of the program code is allowed without the
explicit permission of the copyright holder, and
5.. development of new works built upon the package (derivative works) is allowed and
encouraged with the condition that derivative works must also be designated as freeware.
Click to expand...

Incredible. They define freeware as open source.

Real freeware like the Opera browser, does not exist in their world.

Makes one wonder who is spreading all this totally faulty information
about freeware. Fanatical open source advocates, is a good guess. For
some reason they seem to hate freeware.
 
Roger said:
Incredible. They define freeware as open source.

Real freeware like the Opera browser, does not exist in their world.

Makes one wonder who is spreading all this totally faulty information
about freeware. Fanatical open source advocates, is a good guess. For
some reason they seem to hate freeware.
Click to expand...

I found their definition 'interesing' also, and interestingly enough, some of
THEM use FREEWARE! LOL! But you know the deal, [anything for
a controversy].

Helen
 
Roger Johansson wrote:

about freeware. Fanatical open source advocates, is a good guess. For
some reason they seem to hate freeware.
Click to expand...


They? hmmm, well.

They need more sockets!




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic



P.S.: I would say, Freeware is Software without paying for full
functionality. Copyright holder is the author, and they with permission
of the copyright-holder (partners, companies etc...). But Open
source??? my God, what's now?
 
Roger said:
Incredible. They define freeware as open source.

Real freeware like the Opera browser, does not exist in their world.

Makes one wonder who is spreading all this totally faulty information
about freeware. Fanatical open source advocates, is a good guess. For
some reason they seem to hate freeware.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem with the fanatical open source advocates is the they
believe that all software must be open source. They don't like any
software which isn't open source hence this is the reason why the hate
commerical, freeware, shareware & public domain software. To them it
must be open source or nothing at all.
 
Back
Top