From: jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1993 18:23:08 GMT
In article <1993Mar6.180013.16266@samba.oit.unc.edu> jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) writes:
>
>I have no problem accepting shareware for sunsite. I probably won't use it
>myself, unless its something pretty spectacular. But, i think its
>important to give all distributing schemes a chance.
>
I think this is great! The more software, the merrier. But I have one
suggestion: could you please put any shareware packages in a seperate,
"shareware" heiarchy, or make sure they are clearly marked as such? I,
and I'm sure others, have a bad habit of downloading software from
sunsite and tsx-11 and making the assumption that it is freeware. The
only time I ever bother to look at the licensing is if I am giving it
to someone else. Although one could argue that a user should always
read the license, in practice, I think it would be more effective if
one could tell at a glance (by filename, directory heirarchy, or an
empty file in the archive like THIS.IS.SHAREWARE or SHAREWARE.LICENSE).
I would suggest establishing a norm of some sort for this to avoid any
misunderstandings/difficulties later on.
suggestions, comments?
Jean.
-- Jean Liddle Computer Science, Illinois State University e-mail: jliddle@ilstu.edu ============================================