Your arguments defy logic. The terms you defined (incorrectly) address terms of use, not distribution. With shareware, you are encouraged to distribute (share) the software as widely as possible, as you are with commercial demos. The difference is that with a commercial demo, standard functionality is not enabled without payment, whereas with shareware, all functionality required to use the software is present, and the honor system is used to secure payment. If you can't afford the software, for example, you can still use it. By your definition, commercial software and shareware are the same thing. So why not call it what it is?
Let's see, taking the first and third results of a Google search for "history shareware" both say that freeware and shareware started out as the same thing. The term "freeware" was trademarked, so they started calling it shareware instead. From the paragraph about Bob Wallace, who coined the term shareware, "People are encouraged to copy and share the software for evaluation, then users of the software are encouraged to pay for it." Note the wording: encouraged, not forced.
>You wishing it to be something else, does not make it so...
You're making my argument for me, my friend.
> Every single shareware program that came out in past 5 years is exactly like that (if not more restrictive). Check their licenses and you will see...
...that they're not shareware. The facts that they market themselves as shareware, and that lots of people actually believe them, do not make them shareware. The fact that abuse of the term is the standard, rather than the exception, does not alter this point.
> Reason that modern shareware went into trialware zone is that people like yourself do not want to pay for something if they dont have to, hence developers could not pay off their own bills anymore, much less anything else.
First, you said it yourself, they went into the trialware zone. That means that they're trialware. Not Shareware. Second, people like myself? Just what do you presume to know about me? I've happily paid for shareware, and will continue to do so. This is not about payment, this is about honesty; truth in advertising. Back in the day, when most "shareware" was actually shareware, I didn't pay for much of it (did pay for some, though). Why? Because I was in high school, and didn't have any money. I was still able to use the software to its full extent, and that played a part in my being a professional programmer today. Shareware is about letting those who want to use the software do so, and requesting, not demanding, that they pay for the privilege. The commercial software of which you speak does not have the same benefit of true shareware, that of letting those without the means continue to use the software.
> I work for shareware company and we depend on sales to pay out salaries
Now, I think it's great that you can make a living doing this, and I applaud you for sticking to the ideals of shareware, but shareware started out as people writing software because they loved to program, who were willing to share their creations with the world. It was often small programs that would not be marketable or salable profitably. Some of the more interesting software became quite popular and people found that they could make some real money from it, and it became a business model for some people. This was all fine and good. As soon as people started crippling the software, however, it ceased to be shareware. Whatever you want to call it, trialware, commercial demo, etc., what you're talking about is a company whose business model is to have a widely distributed, partially functional or time-limited *demo* of some commercial software. If you *must* pay for functionality, it is commercial software. Period. End of story.
I find it disturbing that so many people continually show such complete ignorance of the history of this industry.
Shareware is fully-functional software for which you are *encouraged* to pay the developer (if you find it useful). You are also encouraged to share it with your friends, hence the name shareware. It is not time limited. It is not missing any functionality necessary for normal operation. It may have annoying messages nagging you to please pay, but if it is hampered in any way in which you must pay to get the fully-functional version, it is a commercial demo.
It's offensive that so many people these days seem to be freeloading off the good will and generosity of the shareware community in order to sell their commercial products!
The biggest problem with this approach is the distribution. Unfortunately, nobody really seems to give a rat's ass about the environment, so they'd rather buy a car that pollutes the air but can use gasoline available at every other street corner than take the risk of having to drive an extra 3 blocks to the new sodium borohydride station. Hell, you can buy a VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Direct Injection, diesel fuel, like you can't get that anywhere) that gets twice the gas mileage of the GLX (unleaded) version, pollutes less, and has performance comparable to their lower end gas models. You don't see the roads filled with TDIs, do you?
Even if you could convince people to buy the cars, none of the gas stations will want to take on the expense of converting to the new stuff in the first place.
A solution won't fly unless it's cheaper, easier, AND performs better than what people have now. Unless, of course, Microsoft's marketing people have at it.
I feel like I should step in and give some picture of what it's like on the inside, coming from the position of a developer that has been excited about ArsDigita for years, but decided to join only recently.
I started working for aD about a month ago as a developer. I decided to come to work for aD, despite the fact that Philip (with whom I shared an office 3 years ago at MIT, and who sparked my original interest in aD at that time) is no longer a participating member of the company. I admire Philip for his accomplishments in building aD, and for the excitement that he has incited in myself and others for interesting uses of the web. I also think that it is kind of insane that the founder of a company can be kicked out of his own company. I can't comment on why Philip isn't here anymore (because I have no personal experience with the matter - no one has tried to restrict my speech about the company in any way), but nothing that I've heard from others that work here suggests that it is any particular tragedy that he's gone. What I can say, however, is that ArsDigita is still an awesome place to work. Everyone whom I have come into contact with here is astoundingly competent, and most believe very strongly in the ideals that I think this company is all about. For the first time in my life, I feel that I am completely surrounded by people who are as good (better) at what I do as I am.
I came to ArsDigita because I believe very strongly in free software, and great software in general. I am of the RMS breed of free software zealots that believe that the GPL is the only way to fly. Naturally, I have been skeptical during my first few weeks here, feeling out what aD's commitment to free software is really like, now that there have been some big changes in the company. What I have seen thus far is that everyone that I have come into contact with is committed to the freeness of ACS. Even the big bad executives seem to understand and believe that keeping ACS free is not just a token gesture toward the community or marketing bonus, but a core part of the way we do business. They also understand that aD as a company, as wonderful and amazing as it is, is still a company that must have revenue to succeed. Building that revenue, in a tougher economy, while remaining committed to the ideals that Philip has written about is the challenge that we now face. This challenge is the reason that ArsDigita exists, and I feel comfortable saying that it will continue to be the reason for our existence in the future (until we figure it all out, of course, then we'll move on to the next challenge).
ArsDigita may not be a crazy little startup anymore, running out of an apartment, with everyone working 80 hour weeks. Philip may not be around anymore, publishing lots of information to get noticed on the web. The company, however, is still here, still strong, and all about building and giving away the best software, publishing great educational materials on the web, and building the best web sites out there. Philip's not here anymore, but there's a whole swarm of people who came here because they believed in a lot of what he was saying, and who will work their asses off to make sure that ArsDigita remains as great as it ever was.
Slashdot Mirror
Your arguments defy logic. The terms you defined (incorrectly) address terms of use, not distribution. With shareware, you are encouraged to distribute (share) the software as widely as possible, as you are with commercial demos. The difference is that with a commercial demo, standard functionality is not enabled without payment, whereas with shareware, all functionality required to use the software is present, and the honor system is used to secure payment. If you can't afford the software, for example, you can still use it. By your definition, commercial software and shareware are the same thing. So why not call it what it is?
Let's see, taking the first and third results of a Google search for "history shareware" both say that freeware and shareware started out as the same thing. The term "freeware" was trademarked, so they started calling it shareware instead. From the paragraph about Bob Wallace, who coined the term shareware, "People are encouraged to copy and share the software for evaluation, then users of the software are encouraged to pay for it." Note the wording: encouraged, not forced.
So who needs to do some investigation? Idiot.
>You wishing it to be something else, does not make it so...
You're making my argument for me, my friend.
> Every single shareware program that came out in past 5 years is exactly like that (if not more restrictive). Check their licenses and you will see...
...that they're not shareware. The facts that they market themselves as shareware, and that lots of people actually believe them, do not make them shareware. The fact that abuse of the term is the standard, rather than the exception, does not alter this point.
> Reason that modern shareware went into trialware zone is that people like yourself do not want to pay for something if they dont have to, hence developers could not pay off their own bills anymore, much less anything else.
First, you said it yourself, they went into the trialware zone. That means that they're trialware. Not Shareware. Second, people like myself? Just what do you presume to know about me? I've happily paid for shareware, and will continue to do so. This is not about payment, this is about honesty; truth in advertising. Back in the day, when most "shareware" was actually shareware, I didn't pay for much of it (did pay for some, though). Why? Because I was in high school, and didn't have any money. I was still able to use the software to its full extent, and that played a part in my being a professional programmer today. Shareware is about letting those who want to use the software do so, and requesting, not demanding, that they pay for the privilege. The commercial software of which you speak does not have the same benefit of true shareware, that of letting those without the means continue to use the software.
> I work for shareware company and we depend on sales to pay out salaries
Now, I think it's great that you can make a living doing this, and I applaud you for sticking to the ideals of shareware, but shareware started out as people writing software because they loved to program, who were willing to share their creations with the world. It was often small programs that would not be marketable or salable profitably. Some of the more interesting software became quite popular and people found that they could make some real money from it, and it became a business model for some people. This was all fine and good. As soon as people started crippling the software, however, it ceased to be shareware. Whatever you want to call it, trialware, commercial demo, etc., what you're talking about is a company whose business model is to have a widely distributed, partially functional or time-limited *demo* of some commercial software. If you *must* pay for functionality, it is commercial software. Period. End of story.
I find it disturbing that so many people continually show such complete ignorance of the history of this industry.
Shareware is fully-functional software for which you are *encouraged* to pay the developer (if you find it useful). You are also encouraged to share it with your friends, hence the name shareware. It is not time limited. It is not missing any functionality necessary for normal operation. It may have annoying messages nagging you to please pay, but if it is hampered in any way in which you must pay to get the fully-functional version, it is a commercial demo.
It's offensive that so many people these days seem to be freeloading off the good will and generosity of the shareware community in order to sell their commercial products!
The biggest problem with this approach is the distribution. Unfortunately, nobody really seems to give a rat's ass about the environment, so they'd rather buy a car that pollutes the air but can use gasoline available at every other street corner than take the risk of having to drive an extra 3 blocks to the new sodium borohydride station. Hell, you can buy a VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Direct Injection, diesel fuel, like you can't get that anywhere) that gets twice the gas mileage of the GLX (unleaded) version, pollutes less, and has performance comparable to their lower end gas models. You don't see the roads filled with TDIs, do you?
Even if you could convince people to buy the cars, none of the gas stations will want to take on the expense of converting to the new stuff in the first place.
A solution won't fly unless it's cheaper, easier, AND performs better than what people have now. Unless, of course, Microsoft's marketing people have at it.
Ummmm...That's why we're using Unix. The Unix world had its worms 10 years ago. Those holes have been patched, and now people know better.
I feel like I should step in and give some picture of what it's like on the inside, coming from the position of a developer that has been excited about ArsDigita for years, but decided to join only recently.
I started working for aD about a month ago as a developer. I decided to come to work for aD, despite the fact that Philip (with whom I shared an office 3 years ago at MIT, and who sparked my original interest in aD at that time) is no longer a participating member of the company. I admire Philip for his accomplishments in building aD, and for the excitement that he has incited in myself and others for interesting uses of the web. I also think that it is kind of insane that the founder of a company can be kicked out of his own company. I can't comment on why Philip isn't here anymore (because I have no personal experience with the matter - no one has tried to restrict my speech about the company in any way), but nothing that I've heard from others that work here suggests that it is any particular tragedy that he's gone. What I can say, however, is that ArsDigita is still an awesome place to work. Everyone whom I have come into contact with here is astoundingly competent, and most believe very strongly in the ideals that I think this company is all about. For the first time in my life, I feel that I am completely surrounded by people who are as good (better) at what I do as I am.
I came to ArsDigita because I believe very strongly in free software, and great software in general. I am of the RMS breed of free software zealots that believe that the GPL is the only way to fly. Naturally, I have been skeptical during my first few weeks here, feeling out what aD's commitment to free software is really like, now that there have been some big changes in the company. What I have seen thus far is that everyone that I have come into contact with is committed to the freeness of ACS. Even the big bad executives seem to understand and believe that keeping ACS free is not just a token gesture toward the community or marketing bonus, but a core part of the way we do business. They also understand that aD as a company, as wonderful and amazing as it is, is still a company that must have revenue to succeed. Building that revenue, in a tougher economy, while remaining committed to the ideals that Philip has written about is the challenge that we now face. This challenge is the reason that ArsDigita exists, and I feel comfortable saying that it will continue to be the reason for our existence in the future (until we figure it all out, of course, then we'll move on to the next challenge).
ArsDigita may not be a crazy little startup anymore, running out of an apartment, with everyone working 80 hour weeks. Philip may not be around anymore, publishing lots of information to get noticed on the web. The company, however, is still here, still strong, and all about building and giving away the best software, publishing great educational materials on the web, and building the best web sites out there. Philip's not here anymore, but there's a whole swarm of people who came here because they believed in a lot of what he was saying, and who will work their asses off to make sure that ArsDigita remains as great as it ever was.