(Long) Answer to Question of .net ethics

[Tom Neff]

In article <dfs.655483350 at kirk> dfs at doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:
>Everyone condemned "shareware" - ie, no-one is willing to be "forced" to
>register a program to continue using it.
>
>Most people didn't mind "beggarware" - ie, a request for a voluntary donation.
>However, they didn't think anyone would get rich on this.

Sorry, but where I come from, true "shareware" MEANS voluntary
donations.  Packages that browbeat the user into contributing are just
obnoxious "threatware" or whatever you want to call it.  Nomenclature
seems to have been degraded in some quarters.

Nevertheless I think there is a tacit agreement that asking for
donations over the net in ANY form, even in a source README, is bad
form.  The traditional Usenet format is source-only freeware.  It got us
where we are today.  Unfortunately as the net floods with BBS refugees
this tradition is endangered and needs reinforcement.

-- 
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday,      ||  Tom Neff
lying in hospitals dying of nothing. -- Redd Foxx  ||  tneff at bfmny0.BFM.COM