Author Topic: not freeware !!! (Read 38,975 times)

f0dder · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2007, 11:29 PM »

*shrug* - I still don't see the problem in labeling the software as donationware, imho it fits quite fine. If it was possible to lobby the major download sites into adding more categories, fine, but it probably isn't - and so I still think 'freeware' is the correct label there.

Unless I remember wrong, it's not like you need the license anyway, if you can live with a single nag every time you start the program. Not that big a deal, imho, if you're for some reason unwilling to do the tiny amount of work it takes to register.

Oh well, at least you're being reasonable, not like those alt.comp.freeware nitpicking zealots :p

edyshor · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2007, 11:04 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on March 19, 2007, 11:29 PM

If it was possible to lobby the major download sites into adding more categories, fine, but it probably isn't

You should like you haven't even tried, in that case you can't say that "they will not" or "it's impossible" or "can't be done".
You quit before you try, that is definitely not the way

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #27 on:** March 20, 2007, 11:12 AM »

Who says the definition of donationware is 'free but donation requested' and equally valid definition could be 'donation required if you use it (however small)'

On that basis software on this site is available as donationware - but also totally free - the only restriction being a forum registration and downloading a key periodically. Even if you don't register with the site or download a key the software still works without any restrictions.

Given the rate which this software is developed and new releases are produced is it unreasonable to ask people to register?

tinyvillager · « **Reply #28 on:** March 20, 2007, 12:09 PM »

As a member for going on two years i feel obligated to chime in at least once...

It's all good the way things are right now.If memory serves me correctly i donated some before the key system
was put into place cause i like the forum so much.I've said before,i'll say it again,this forum has some very
brite human beings from all walks of life and all over the globe.I find there is little trolling,little spam,and a
whole lot of people helping each other out.

That's a major accomplishment,i know we've all
seen to many forums that have cob webs and tumble weeds rolling through them.So kudos to mouser and
it's contributers.

I actually feel guilty for not donating in a while,sorry mouser,trying to kill off a couple of credit cards before summer.

tomos · « **Reply #29 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:44 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on March 20, 2007, 11:12 AM

Who says the definition of donationware is 'free but donation requested' an equally valid definition could be 'donation required if you use it (however small)'

how about this defenition of donationware courtesy Avedesk - (from the readme.txt with AveDesk 1.3)

Quote

AveDesk is not freeware, but DONATIONWARE. This means that you are not free to use this application if you wish,
but that you should donate a small amount of money to the AveDesk authors if you like AveDesk and use it frequently.
Donating is not enforced, it's rather a legal trick to make sure no-one runs away with AveDesk for free :-).

why not

mouser · « **Reply #30 on:** March 20, 2007, 01:55 PM »

To me, the key part of donationware is that whether or not a user chooses to donate, and regardless of the amount, they should have full access to the full program, without imposing any *non-trivial* work or annoyances.

The *non-trivial* part is where things get a bit subjective and fuzzy -- but at least speaking for myself, that's the standard i use, and i do consider what we ask of users who choose not to donate to be trivial. For this reason i also consider the software to fall under the heading of free software.

edyshor · « **Reply #31 on:** March 21, 2007, 11:01 AM »

Donationaware as far as I'm concerned (a learned definition from software that I've encountered over the years) is software that is free. But in the about box, readme or some website (or someplace else that an interested user might read) it states a call for the user's good will to donate some money if they appreciate the software, in other words donations are not imposed (a donation by definition is a contribution: a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn ) The user should not be imposed to donate, its ok to inform him, it's ok to convince him in a informative way, but not by promise of alleviating an annoyance or otherwise more or less tedious task. (the special offers and discounts should be enough) and I'm ok to show him the article mouser wrote and prevent direct linking to downloadable content. But this should be more then enough. The need to register and the nag screen differentiate mouser's software from traditional freeware and donationware. It's free software but is not freeware. It's not exactly donationware either, because the user is alleviated by the annoyance of periodically register and seeing the nag screen when it starts the program.

Anyway, we're arguing here about the ethical use of freeware/donationware concepts, and the "ethical" concept itself is a relative term anyway.

The software is great, i don't say that it ain't worth some bucks or anything, so don't jump on me about that

mouser · « **Reply #32 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:11 PM »

edyshor, I think you make some reasonable points. I also appreciate that you've come up with definitions that are useful (i think you made a good case about why you think it qualifies as "free software" and not "freeware"). Things become a little messy in the real world because most people don't have such a nuanced view of these word meanings. I do think we should probably make a more determined effort to use the term free software whenever possible, and avoid using the term "freeware" except when forced to choose between labeling our software freeware vs. shareware. I'd also agree that Donationware is not the ideal term -- the problem is that there is no existing term that perfectly captures what we do, and we have enough trouble explaining the site to not want to add to it by calling our software "PayWhatYouWantIncludingNothingButYouHaveToSignUpAtForumUnlessYouDontMindAnOccassionalReminderOrWriteToUs_WARE"

f0dder · « **Reply #33 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:25 PM »

"PayWhatYouWantIncludingNothingButYouHaveToSignUpAtForumUnlessYouDontMindAnOccassionalReminderOrWriteToUs_WARE"

Wordzilla · « **Reply #34 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:30 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on March 21, 2007, 12:25 PM

"PayWhatYouWantIncludingNothingButYouHaveToSignUpAtForumUnlessYouDontMindAnOccassionalReminderOrWriteToUs_WARE"
[attachment 1 not found]

nudone · « **Reply #35 on:** March 21, 2007, 12:45 PM »

those hearts look kind of cool. whose blood did you use for the paint.

mouser · « **Reply #36 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:06 PM »

f0dder, ROFL.

f0dder · « **Reply #37 on:** March 21, 2007, 01:20 PM »

Well, if we're going to convince software sites to add new categories, we might as well aim high - and I support that category along with the banner. Which was not made from the blood of innocent puppies by the way, nude-one

edyshor · « **Reply #38 on:** March 21, 2007, 08:32 PM »

nice, and fits well .. the hearts especially are purrrfect for it

mouser, from my experience, people do learn, and now is google and wiki which make it even easier

lanux128 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2007, 03:08 AM »

i usually shy away from these discussions but i'd like to make a point here.. i use a freeware tool called ASAP utilities and the developers — after getting tired of bugs reports from users who have older versions — insisted on a policy "to force an upgrade (free) every half year to make sure you are always using the best and most complete version".

after this policy implementation, the user base still grew and at the same time reduced a lot of redundant feature requests and bug reports. that's why i can relate to mouser's decision to include the reminders..

[attach=#]

mouser · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2007, 03:14 AM »

that's an interesting idea. I see it on beta versions a lot actually, for just this reason.

lanux128 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2007, 03:31 AM »

mouser, this Excel add-in actually shuts down if not upgraded on time. this may come a bit abrupt but at least when it comes to bug reports or feature request, rest assured that when they say it's in the release there's no confusion to which one..

anyway, this way things are in order & in my opinion, if the author decides how to give away his software, i think that's his prerogative.. it's not like the users are forced to abet to these policies..

ok, i got this off my chest..

Ruffnekk · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2007, 07:03 AM »

I also use ASAP utilities and I don't mind at all about the upgrades

I even find it convenient at times!

lanux128 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 05, 2007, 04:31 AM »

yes, if the software is of quality, then the users will be able to look beyond the hair-pulling discussions on the definition of freeware and actually look forward to enjoy using the software.. in the case of ASAP utilities, i think this program is of professional quality and has helped me a lot of times.. kudos to the developers..

P.S. btw, Ruffnekk nice image you have there.. do you take orders for customisation?

Ruffnekk · « **Reply #44 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:16 AM »

Quote from: lanux128 on April 05, 2007, 04:31 AM

yes, if the software is of quality, then the users will be able to look beyond the hair-pulling discussions on the definition of freeware and actually look forward to enjoy using the software.. in the case of ASAP utilities, i think this program is of professional quality and has helped me a lot of times.. kudos to the developers..

Indeed! Maybe a mini-review of ASAP will bring it to the attention of more people, because I can't imagine using Excel without it anymore.

Quote from: lanux128 on April 05, 2007, 04:31 AM

P.S. btw, Ruffnekk nice image you have there.. do you take orders for customisation?

Do you mean the signature image or my avatar? The avatar is not my own creation, the signature images were made using the online tool at http://ubdesigner.com/ and animated with the online tool at http://ubanimator.com/

lanux128 · « **Reply #45 on:** April 05, 2007, 06:05 AM »

i meant the signature image.. thanks for the link, heading right there..

Curt · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2007, 03:27 PM »

Quote from: edyshor on March 18, 2007, 06:03 PM

The problem is with terminology. The software found and Donation Coder (the one that requires a 6 month licence and registration to obtain it) is not freeware or donationware in the strict sense, its free software (which is not the same as freeware).
(...)
freeware is freeware and must remain the same, freeware is free software, but free software is not freeware,
(...)
Freeware (aside the definition from alt.comp.freeware) is software that you plug and play no hassle no question asked without the need to visit author's page, without guaranties either (I've had my share of bad experiences with purely written software) but it's freeware, that is the purpose of it, no need to register, do something more then run application and expect to run without me being required to license it or anything else.
(....)
Free software covers a larger area (ad-ware, spyware, requestware, registerware) so technically your software is registerware i.e. free software and not freeware.
(...)
Donationware, is free software that is released and the user is called upon to support the developer if he wishes, with a donation, but it is not forced upon it in neither way, not by spaming him with requests into persuading him to donate, not by forcing him to give something (like information, by registering on the DC's forum) this solely ejects it from the freeware category.
(...)
OK, maybe you can extend the donationware, to make it more .. persuasive to the cause (after all is free software, with the condition that the user has to register on the forum) but it's definitely not freeware!

Please forgive me, but I think I agree with edyshor!

Quote

"The problem is with terminology."

DC stuff is free software, financed by voluntary donations - not freeware or donationware.

Couldn't we simply standardize this phrase, "free software, financed by voluntary donations" ?? It needs little explanation, if any. Download.com and friends may go on calling it freeware; they don't offer the chance to use the right term anyway.

dk70 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2007, 05:17 PM »

Why is there a need to live up to an outdated definition of what freeware is? - or what this or that person think? I dont understand need for standard and dont think there is one either. Lots of free software is "questionable" - silly to only look at how easy it is for user to download and install. Not having to go to site of author is a purpose?

Try look around at that newsgroup. Start asking questions like - is freeware also illegal software? You sure Real and Apple nod when they see their codecs distributed as FREE? like in K-Lite or the Alternative codec packs? I doubt it but people are happy, easy to install so who cares. Pro is better than non-Pro right? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.freeware/browse_thread/thread/d4af7335ff70f4a1/51cfdfd3bb66cc4d#51cfdfd3bb66cc4d "We dont like that here" about WMV format, blah blah. This little not so bad program says in about box "If you like this free program then please visit my webpage and donate" and there http://www.jlc-software.com/ you notice same request at top besides a Paypal button. BUT software itself is true freeware as opposed to that on DC? If there is a spirit of freeware DC has it as much as any other program.

The popular AV program Avast, approved in freeware newsgroup, do the same thing about registration - requires you to update regulary and visit their site - like you had to at first installation. Wahhh

lanux128 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 09, 2007, 01:57 AM »

as dk70 said, why must the definition be cast in stone? if the software is good enough, then give it a try.. why must a iron-clad definition be imposed on it then chucked away before giving it a proper chance? in some of the forums, there are hair-splitting discussions that goes like this: "this is a good program BUT there is a small unobtrusive screen that says something about visiting the website for updates therefore it does not fit the STANDARD definition of freeware & off it goes.."

yes, software at DC goes through several phases but eventually it ends up as freeware with full technical support. when you pose a question in the forums, mouser doesn't check if you had donated in the last few months before answering.. in fact, he allows threads such as this to go on so that the user can decide for themselves whether to try out/use the programs at DC.

there is no need for anyone to be apologetic but i'm confident that this will be paradigm-shift just as we were so used to folders (and directories before them) with their hierarchy then tagging came along and changed everything. now people looking to implement this onto their desktop.. it will take some time..