Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unrestricted vs. Limited Shareware, In Dollars

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the more-evil-or-less-in-your-coffee? dept.

mklopez writes "There is a belief in the online world that people will be more willing to compensate an author for a downloaded program that has full functionality, versus paying to unlock features in a shareware version. Someone actually put this idea to a test with surprising results."

2 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Test? What test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Summary links to some guy's blog who briefly mentions the test then explains how he cripples his software.

    The actual test is here

  2. I'm not *allowed* to donate! by Saunalainen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in the public sector, and I have a sizable budget for IT expenses. I can justify expenditure on just about anything simply by saying I need it. However, the purchasing department wouldn't let me give money to a project if I can get the same software free of charge. We're very carefully audited to make sure our software is licensed, but if the license permits usage at no cost then there is no way we can justify giving a donation. We would be in big trouble if we were found to be `wasting' taxpayers' money in this way.

    Even in the private sector, a corporation has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to reduce costs, and runs the risk of being sued by them if it donates money unnecessarily.

    Neither public nor private organizations are allowed to be charitable with their patrons' money.