jury duty volunteers: ware status of this one?

  • Thread starter Thread starter omega
  • Start date Start date
O

omega

I'm in pursuit of a verdict on the ware status of ShellXpert 1.0b.
It's a context-menu editor. Circa 2001.03.11.

Later in that year, following the release of the version in question,
it became obvious shareware.

It appears to have gone entirely extinct some time ago.

The license.txt file distributed with this brings me bad news. It says
trial use only, registration required, and so on. Yet, the program itself
contradicts the license file. Under Help>About, it says: "no registration
required."

I've uploaded the files related to this subject (the license, a few
screen clips, the program itself), with a struggling attempt to plead
the case, here:

http://www.redshift.com/~omega/2004/payware/shellxpertQ.htm

I'm trying to solicit decision by jury. Can this program possibly,
somehow, be interpreted to be free? Or, does that license.txt file
absolutely override all things. That is, does the jury return a
definitive SOL judgement ?
 
omega said:
I'm trying to solicit decision by jury. Can this program possibly,
somehow, be interpreted to be free? Or, does that license.txt file
absolutely override all things. That is, does the jury return a
definitive SOL judgement ?
Click to expand...

It is free. Help/About says it is a beta app and no reg is required. End
of. Licence.txt pertains to ShellXpert 1.0b. Your app is 1.00 beta. OK,
1.00 beta will soon become 1.0b and then 'catch up' with licence.txt but
it hasn't done so yet.
 
jo said:
It is free. Help/About says it is a beta app and no reg is required. End
of. Licence.txt pertains to ShellXpert 1.0b. Your app is 1.00 beta. OK,
1.00 beta will soon become 1.0b and then 'catch up' with licence.txt but
it hasn't done so yet.
Click to expand...

The numberings, 1.0b and 1.00 beta, then those are not one and the same?
If true there, this is a great outcome! I can take ShellXpert out from the
hidden shelf, into the light of day, and proclaim it to all of ACF.
 
omega said:
The numberings, 1.0b and 1.00 beta, then those are not one and the same?
Click to expand...

One has an extra '0' and an 'eta' and a ' ' :-)

Assuming them to be different builds with different licencing
requirements can help to explain the disparity between 'help/about' and
licence.txt.

I had a brief look for a download link to a later sharew*re version in
order to check the wording, but failed to find one.
 
jo said:
One has an extra '0' and an 'eta' and a ' ' :-)
Click to expand...

All right. :)

I'm reminded of a fascinating post I once read. Someone was proclaiming
about "version 8.0" of some app. Someone else came in and corrected, that
the app under discussion, it was at version 0.8. The first poster, their
response went something like: "It's my math background. I was trained to
drop leading zeros." I read that through a few times, and truly, I believe
the response was serious, not tongue/cheek. What an interesting approach
that would make for dealing with numbers... :)
Assuming them to be different builds with different licencing
requirements can help to explain the disparity between 'help/about' and
licence.txt.
Click to expand...

It would sure resolve that screwy contradiction...
I had a brief look for a download link to a later sharew*re version in
order to check the wording, but failed to find one.
Click to expand...

Quite vanished, nearly extinct. Until now. With this verdict, that
one-dot-zero-zero-beta version can be unearthed and sent out to roam
in the freeware fields. :)
 
omega said:
It would sure resolve that screwy contradiction...


Quite vanished, nearly extinct. Until now. With this verdict, that
one-dot-zero-zero-beta version can be unearthed and sent out to roam
in the freeware fields. :)
Click to expand...

Yetch - another one of those murky situation. . .

I haven't been able to remember the name but *somewhere* I have info
about an app that was released as freeware. The freeware version is
available at other sites. The author has the *identical* version on his
site as shareware.

I sure wish I could think of the name of the app. IIRC it was discussed
in ACF fairly recently. . . I'm sure it's *somewhere* in the ACF
program list. . . which isn't much help. . . :)

Could you post the file names for ShellXpert? (I'm assuming you have a
..zip with an .exe inside.) There might be a download lurking out there
that *doesn't* have that shareware EULA packaged with it.

FWIW I found a URL for Flexy Computing (the author's site):

http://www.flexytools.com/

I then discovered that the Wayback Machine is down. . .

rats and phooey. . .

Susan
 
Susan said:
I sure wish I could think of the name of the app. IIRC it was discussed
in ACF fairly recently. . . I'm sure it's *somewhere* in the ACF
program list. . . which isn't much help. . . :)
Click to expand...

Did it have a blue icon?
 
Susan Bugher said:
[....]
Yetch - another one of those murky situation. . .

I haven't been able to remember the name but *somewhere* I have info
about an app that was released as freeware. The freeware version is
available at other sites. The author has the *identical* version on his
site as shareware.

I sure wish I could think of the name of the app. IIRC it was discussed
in ACF fairly recently. . . I'm sure it's *somewhere* in the ACF
program list. . . which isn't much help. . . :)

Could you post the file names for ShellXpert? (I'm assuming you have a
.zip with an .exe inside.)
Click to expand...

I don't save original installer packages, so don't know what that name
would have been. The exe name itself, it is xpert.exe.

It is a possibility that somewhere along the way I mixed up docs between
this one version, and something later. I don't remember downloading a later
shareware version, but that makes for not much more than a statement about
my ~memory.

I once did that with Cryptedit, mix some files together from a later
release, and did not realize for a while. From the ShellXpert directory
which I zipped and uploaded, there are three small .htm files, and those
are dated four months later than that first beta. That drops a little
evidence on the possibility that I'd indeed had a shareware release
around at one point, and then retained its doc files...

OTOH. Regarding the license.txt file. The main reason I arrived at the
belief that it came with that one free beta executable, was because of
the dates of those two files being the same...
There might be a download lurking out there
that *doesn't* have that shareware EULA packaged with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there might well be. I sure cannot go on the stand, myself, to
swear about the original contents. It's a trail disappeared into
the fog. As to helping a search by knowing original package name --
well, I'm not sure about even the beginning of the name. It could be
shellxpert*. Or it could be xpert* (exe's name is "xpert.exe").
FWIW I found a URL for Flexy Computing (the author's site):

http://www.flexytools.com/

I then discovered that the Wayback Machine is down. . .
Click to expand...

The other site was systemutilities.com. Not sure which site came first
and which came later. I don't think we'd get much there. You know how
it is with those shareware authors who release a free beta just long
enough to gain some interest, and some free testing done, then hide it
off as best they can, to replace with a shareware release.

It would be best of all if it were possible to discover what you mentioned,
a download out there of the very first beta, in original package, one
that might not have had the other docs. Better than my subjective patching
together of the history. But I think we might come back empty -- even
with our very finest team of archaeologists.
 
jo said:
Did it have a blue icon?
Click to expand...
One of my essential utilities is RUPL (Recently Used Programs List). It
creates a directory of lnks off the startmenu for the recent (up to 60)
programs one has launched. I depend on it to answer my recurrent question:
"Now what program was it...the one I was running about an hour ago?"

But where RUPL cannot step in to assist is in the advanced matter of
further back in time, those that have faded back to the status of "the
lost blue icon.."
 
jo said:
Did it have a blue icon?
Click to expand...

If I had that much info I might be able to find it. :) Zero recollection
of anything but the ware status.

it's verrrrrrrrry annoying ;)

Susan
 
Susan Bugher said:
If I had that much info I might be able to find it. :) Zero recollection
of anything but the ware status.

it's verrrrrrrrry annoying ;)
Click to expand...

Good news, reprieve from that annoyance. Keywords in your post brought
forth the right hit. I entered shareware AND freeware AND site into my
folder of recent ACF messages.

It was the thread "Fully Configurable Database Program," with research
done by B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson. At <http://zgsprojects.narod.ru> there is
a freeware, Russian version of Table. Then at <http://zgs.de.ms>, one
in English -- payware.
 
omega said:
Susan Bugher <[email protected]>:

I don't save original installer packages, so don't know what that name
would have been. The exe name itself, it is xpert.exe.

It is a possibility that somewhere along the way I mixed up docs between
this one version, and something later. I don't remember downloading a later
shareware version, but that makes for not much more than a statement about
my ~memory.

I once did that with Cryptedit, mix some files together from a later
release, and did not realize for a while. From the ShellXpert directory
which I zipped and uploaded, there are three small .htm files, and those
are dated four months later than that first beta. That drops a little
evidence on the possibility that I'd indeed had a shareware release
around at one point, and then retained its doc files...

OTOH. Regarding the license.txt file. The main reason I arrived at the
belief that it came with that one free beta executable, was because of
the dates of those two files being the same...
Click to expand...

That does seem like a reasonable assumption. :(
Yes, there might well be. I sure cannot go on the stand, myself, to
swear about the original contents. It's a trail disappeared into
the fog. As to helping a search by knowing original package name --
well, I'm not sure about even the beginning of the name. It could be
shellxpert*. Or it could be xpert* (exe's name is "xpert.exe").




The other site was systemutilities.com. Not sure which site came first
and which came later. I don't think we'd get much there. You know how
it is with those shareware authors who release a free beta just long
enough to gain some interest, and some free testing done, then hide it
off as best they can, to replace with a shareware release.

It would be best of all if it were possible to discover what you mentioned,
a download out there of the very first beta, in original package, one
that might not have had the other docs. Better than my subjective patching
together of the history. But I think we might come back empty -- even
with our very finest team of archaeologists.
Click to expand...

Could be - OTOH maybe someone will unearth it - if only to prove they
are *the* best searcher in ACF. ;)

Susan
 
Susan Bugher said:
That does seem like a reasonable assumption. :(
Click to expand...

Even if accept that this license.txt was shipped with that exe, I think
it could remain arguable that it does not belong to it. In addition to
the fact that the exe itself states that it is free and no registration,
there is that further consideration Jo pointed out. The difference in
the versioning names: 1.00 beta and 1.0b. I can picture it like this.
The programmer was so greedy as to try to get it all at once. The free
publicity on freeware download sites and the feedback of beta testers.
Then in the same move, driven by the anticipation of his plans to soon
demand money, he silently slid the soon-to-apply (in next exe) license
in there.

[...]
Could be - OTOH maybe someone will unearth it - if only to prove they
are *the* best searcher in ACF. ;)
Click to expand...

That would be quite a competition. Especially as I think I even spotted Zo
zipping by the other day.
 
omega said:
Good news, reprieve from that annoyance. Keywords in your post brought
forth the right hit. I entered shareware AND freeware AND site into my
folder of recent ACF messages.

It was the thread "Fully Configurable Database Program," with research
done by B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson. At <http://zgsprojects.narod.ru> there is
a freeware, Russian version of Table. Then at <http://zgs.de.ms>, one
in English -- payware.
Click to expand...

I wish. :( That's not the one - these were *completely* identical files.

Susan
 
Susan Bugher said:
I wish. :( That's not the one - these were *completely* identical files.
Click to expand...

Agh. I know that kind of frustration. The practice I use is to not even
try to concentrate on remembering, since I usually get nowhere from that.
Instead I sort of send a fax off to my unconscious/ subconscious. Then
it gets back to me some days later*.

______
* (At a random moment the answer arrives back. Like at an intersection.
When everybody's honking at you, just because the light's turned green,
and they are too dense too understand that you are receiving an important
fax back from the unconscious.)
 
Back
Top