|
Re: Why does the definition of freeware need to be protected?
de Andy Mabbett 04/29/2006 09:49
In message <12571bfp87prfc8@corp.supernews.com>, John Corliss
<jcorliss@fake.invalid> writes
>This group is, at this point, the major determining force behind the
>definition of freeware.
Bullshit.
> What we allow to be discussed here, is what in fact, the world at
>large determines to be freeware as a result of our checks and balances.
Bullshit., Furthermore, no-one is in a position to allow or disallow
discussion of anything. You still don't get that, after all these years,
do you?
>If the definition of freeware is watered down to include such things as
>nagware, demoware, crippleware and the like, then software authors will
>start flooding the internet with downloads which will be those nasty
>surprises, and you won't know it until after you install them.
Well, thank goodness that your vigilance ensures that no such downloads
are found on the Internet, then...
>The main thing keeping the price of commercial software down is the
>existence of freeware as worthy competition. For example:
Evidence?
>If freeware starts becoming something that people don't want, then
>there will be no competition for commercial software and I can assure
>you, Adobe won't be the only one raping it's users for every cent they
>can squeeze out of YOU.
I'm sure people who have been raped relay love your analogy.
BTW, why don't you fix your broken sig?
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>