[PL] acf Ware Glossary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
S

Susan Bugher

re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.

I propose the immediate removal of the "Adware 2." clause from the acf
Ware Glossary. This will give us closure on the Adware issue as it
relates to PL2004.

I propose we have a full discussion about Ware Types in January 2005:

1. Opinion poll: Wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable for discussion
in the newsgroup, wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable as PL selections.

2. Review/ revision of the acf Ware Glossary. This would include
discussion of a new ware type (Brandedware, Logoware or whatever) as a
replacement for the "Adware 2." clause.

3. Review/ revision of acceptable/ unacceptable ware types for PL2006.

Are there any objections to this course of action?

Susan
 
Susan said:
re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.
Click to expand...


so what is the difference between adware 1 and adware 2 ? why not just
combine the two and make adware 3 ?
 
re: the Adware issue.

ePrompter and Directory Lister will not be on the 2005 Pricelessware
List. The only concern of immediate importance is Directory Lister's
description on PL2004.

We don't have a consensus on the interpretation of the "Adware 2."
definition. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." is not nearly as bad
as Adware 1. There is a consensus that "Adware 2." apps should be
eligible for the PL.

I propose the immediate removal of the "Adware 2." clause from the acf
Ware Glossary. This will give us closure on the Adware issue as it
relates to PL2004.

I propose we have a full discussion about Ware Types in January 2005:

1. Opinion poll: Wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable for discussion
in the newsgroup, wares that are acceptable/ unacceptable as PL selections.

2. Review/ revision of the acf Ware Glossary. This would include
discussion of a new ware type (Brandedware, Logoware or whatever) as a
replacement for the "Adware 2." clause.

3. Review/ revision of acceptable/ unacceptable ware types for PL2006.

Are there any objections to this course of action?
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me.
 
Adware in any form shouldn't even be thought of as freeware....
Hehehehee.... But then again, I'm extreme in my opinion of what freeware
is, so I expect a lot of people to not agree with what I say on Adware
stuff.

-Garrett
 
Back
Top