S
Susan Bugher
Vegard said:Susan said:Nicolaas said:With respect, Susan, I think you may have hold of the wrong end of the
stick here. I believe Mr Petersen was intending to elicit a
consensus on a FREEWARE
logo, not an ACF logo (i.e., a logo that could be used at the
copyrightholder's discretion to denote "genuine" Freeware in the
commonly-accepted sense [i.e., as would reasonably be understood by a
reasonable person {i.e., fanatics notwithstanding}]) without having
necessarily to gain the "approval" of ACF for its use (and who would be
the approving authority, and why? - it would be idle - nay, stupid - to
suggest that every use should be voted on and its use in that way
would be impossible to police.)
http://home.no/buffy2/ displays 17 freeware images. 16 of them are
FREEWARE logos (they are images without words).
oops. . . they *don't* say alt.comp.freeware - some do say freeware,
spyware etc. etc.
Very interesting chain of thought! It is the ACF who votes / select the
"freeware logo". Is it then the ACF logo also? And since it is selected
by ACF, can it then use the words alt.comp.freeware?
And to complicate matter (or make it easier) - I'm gonna suggest that we
don't invent the wheel again and as the criteria for use re-use what the
group earlier has decided is acceptable "freeware" - ie programs
electable for the pricelessware and it's wares glossary...
Acceptable: Freeware, and the non-intrusive versions of Liteware,
Giftware, Charityware, Registerware, Requestware. Ain't this what we
usually accepts ???
Websites must clearly distinguish between freeware and shareware if they
are gonna use the logo. Freeware on a specific page for instance.
Example: Snapfiles top 100 freeware could use the logo...
http://www.snapfiles.com/topdownloads/fw_top100-1.html
And I still believe R. Sandee must keep the copyright to the image.
We can ask for people to link to a freeware logo site (or page at
pricelessware). That way we can use counters/trackers to see which sites
use it. But we have no chance whatsoever to fully control who uses the
image. If we find inproper use of it, we can ask them to remove it.
With a copyright for the image to an individual (not to a concept as
"loose" as the acf group) perhaps we can have some muscle behind our
demand.
I'm hoping both pricelessware sites will use the image and help spread
"the word".
Regards from vegard
I disagree with most of what you said.

of opinion on the which wares are on-topic for discussion in ACF. IMO we
should not attempt to tell others what they may or may not show on their
web sites to get an ACF "seal of approval". I don't think we should
become policemen. . .
IMO we're talking apples and oranges. The "vote" is about a logo for
FREEWARE - like Nicholaas I assumed such a logo could/would be used by
freeware sites as *they* saw fit. I object to having the words
"alt.comp.freeware" on such a logo.
I favor having a logo with alt.comp.freeware on it *if* it is linked to
the ACF ware glossary:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php
and I favor letting other sites use that logo.
IMO this would be a helpful to many - it might even lead to more
uniformity in ware descriptions. . . someday. . .
Susan