[PL] PL2005 General Discussion

[omega]

A mislabeled app misleads the group.

Sounds like you're craving a new little box for the collection.

LogoWare

product logo (name +- link +- graphic) appears somewhere in output data
product logo not there for purpose of selling a product

When there is lots of time, can scour the whole PL2005, once it if final,
and assess the great many progs which are deemed to qualify as being
slotted into a LogoWare box.

I wonder as well about those products which insist on asserting their
presence right into the interface of my OS. For instance, those which
do a forced write to the registry on every run, to cause themselves to
always be on the explorer menus pertaining to New...<document Brand X>
That logo behavior, it is not an effect viewed by looking at data files,
but it is nevertheless very visible residue of product name.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Popcorn wants to be added to that which can be a substantial list here:

X-Mailer: Ultrafunk Popcorn release 1.50b3 (10-Sep-2003)
X-URL: http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/

Quoting <[email protected]>

"Most things needs interpretation, definitions and rules included."

Yes but I don't think the X-mailer header qualifies for labelling
Popcorn or other e-mail clients adware for this reason alone. Firstly,
the X-mailer header is common practice. Some clients might allow you
to turn it off, but the default and most common is always on.
Secondly, the url is "hidden" in the header, not in your face. Not
that I think it is nice or good practice to add promo URLs
to message headers (unnecessary increasing the overhead/bandwidth
consumption)....

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Interpretations may vary.

Then why did you conclude as if your own conclusion is based on
premises above and beyond interpretation?

That's why Outlook Express is on the PL2005 Ware Ballot.

.... does not have much to do with interpretation of singular terms
such as "advertisement" and "adware" as such. Interpretation is of
course involved where humans/signs/text interface, but that is
besides the point here.

OTOH - sometimes the definition is clear *but*. . .

Last year Trillian was on the PL2004 Ware Ballot. It was clearly Nagware
*but* the nag was seldom seen - many people *never* saw it. Acf
participants voted to make an exception in the Pricelessware rules.

I think it does.

The Just Right Click Greeting Card app puts this on the back of a
greeting card:

"Just Right Click Greeting Card: www.justrightclick.com"

I said that it was Adware. Others have expressed their agreement.

No argument from me there, the site offers software for sale.
Directory lister's home site does not. Again, I'm not saying I like
the way it behaves, I'm just saying I do not think it qualifies
tossing it out as adware.

Pretend the Emporer is wearing clothes? IMO the issue should be resolved.

Who said anything about pretending anything or that the issue should
not be resolved? I only suggested not now - later.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

X-Mailer: Ultrafunk Popcorn release 1.50b3 (10-Sep-2003)
X-URL: http://www.ultrafunk.com/products/popcorn/

[...]
Secondly, the url is "hidden" in the header, not in your face. Not
that I think it is nice or good practice to add promo URLs
to message headers (unnecessary increasing the overhead/bandwidth
consumption)....

FWIW, the Directory Lister URL thing in html output can be hidden in advance,
instead of deleted afterwards, via font and background color settings. But
of course there I side-track. As I believe we agree: 1. It is an annoyance,
a fault, when a product does the vanity behavior. 2. Mere appearance of
product name in some place in output does not automatically mean that such
software is Adware instead of freeware.

 

[omega]

As I believe we agree: 1. It is an annoyance,
a fault, when a product does the vanity behavior. 2. Mere appearance of
product name in some place in output

Change that to "It is sometimes an annoyance, a fault..."

I'm thinking about all the various cmd line utils -- well, add too a number
of gui system utilities -- which give their names in the top or bottom of
their output reports. Something often highly desirable, in order to later
figure out what you're reading.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Then why did you conclude as if your own conclusion is based on
premises above and beyond interpretation?

This newsgroup was told Directory Lister is Adware.
This newsgroup was told ePrompter is Adware.

My *conclusion* was that this should be discussed and a course of action
should be agreed upon by newsgroup participants.

My *conclusion* was that an immediate decision is needed in regard to
Directory Lister since that app is on the present Pricelessware List.

Who said anything about pretending anything or that the issue should
not be resolved? I only suggested not now - later.

If we have information and don't act on it we are pretending. AFAIK
Directory Lister is Adware.

I have an obligation to visitors to the Pricelessware site. IMO I must
either inform them that Directory Lister is Adware or remove Directory
Lister or remove the statement that says "There are NO
Adware/Spyware programs in the Pricelessware List."

I take my obligations pretty seriously. I would very much like to have
some direction from this mewsgroup.

Susan

 

[PuppyKatt]

Hi Susan. If you, who are maintaining the site, and YOU KNOW that something
is NOT freeware, then You have the obligation and the right to remove it
from the site. This is also the way Son Of Spy maintains his site; if he
finds anything with "strings attached," it is GONE.
I hope this little blurb of mine helps the situation that you are in. -PK-

 

[MLC]

_Susan Bugher_, sabato 06/nov/2004:

If we have information and don't act on it we are pretending. AFAIK
Directory Lister is Adware.

I think that if you'd label Directory Lister as Adware, it would dilute the
meaning of Adware itself.
IOW, now I'm avoiding adware ASAP, because I know what it means, then
instead I'd find myself to try even adware software because I don't know if
it has been labelled adware only for a "signature" or logo.

Sometimes being too strict causes an opposite effect.

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I have an obligation to visitors to the Pricelessware site. IMO I must
either inform them that Directory Lister is Adware or remove Directory
Lister or remove the statement that says "There are NO
Adware/Spyware programs in the Pricelessware List."

I do appreciate your effort, I just sometimes do not agree with all
your arguments and conclusions. It is sometimes hard to tell if they
are *yours* - or conclusions others arrived at in another thread.
Particularly when you seem to stubbornly defended the conclusion (*is*
ADWARE) as your own, and/or - in any case - as something beyond
further debate. In this case you have arguments that goes both ways,
Directory Lister should be considered adware or Directory Lister
should not be considered adware, so I can not see how you will be
failing you responsibilities if you decide to postpone the discussion
and final argument until after the current vote/PL procedure. If
complains, you could refer to this thread. If in doubt, you could
always label it "adware" until the final verdict about either Dir
Lister or the adware definition - or both.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

Sounds like you're craving a new little box for the collection.

LogoWare

product logo (name +- link +- graphic) appears somewhere in output data
product logo not there for purpose of selling a product

Just what I was thinking. The problem is of course there will be
grades and shades of "logoware", some more "in your face" than others,
so much that no matter if a Logo/URL only promotes a freeware site,
many will simply label them "adware" or "nagware" and thus not expect
to find them listed on the Pricelessware site. I do understand Susan's
wish for a clear cut either/or definition to simplify things, but in
this case maybe there is none to be found, at least not yet, and as
thus the current calls for some discretional power when applied. (Most
definitions and rules do, we simply like to think of them as "clear
cut", say like if there is no one arguing otherwise and/or the outcome
of our application does not cause other "interuptions/disturbances"
for us).

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

Directory Lister became Adware when we revised the Adware definition in
the Ware Glossary. IOW - it was not Adware when it was selected for PL2004. [Snip]
Adware:
1. software that displays advertising for other products and/or services
(often downloaded from the internet by the software).
2. software that places advertisements on the end product (photos, web
pages, PDF files etc.).

Should we:

1. Remove or revise the Pricelessware Adware/Spware statement and add
"Adware" to Directory Lister's ware description.

No. A hint regarding the link inside the *.html output (within the program
description) will suffice. (That opinion is based on the hitherto mentioned
properties of the program. I don't know nor use it, myself.)

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004
No.

3. Revise the Ware Glossary

Maybe.

Advertisement requires the *purpose* to 'promote' something. This is not
the case with simple introduction lines in report files which state only
the software used to create the report. To the contrary: This is a useful
information. (And common praxis, above all...)

ISTM, the current definition of Adware leaves too much room to include
programs which should not be blemished. Thinking about it: I myself
distinguish Adware from non-Adware by these rules:

1. Software that displays promotional information for any product or
service during their designated usage, respectively on a output
product.
2. The inclusion of self-references for the sole purpose to identify
the source of the publicized information is permitted.
3. Unobtrusive (self-)promotion is permitted within the help system.

If desired this could be used for revising the current definition.
But it sure leaves much room for improvements, still... ;-)

BeAr

 

[majales]

Susan,
I've just noticed that Mozilla Thunderbird is listed in the Email Client
subcategory, when it should be on the Mail & News Client subcategory.
Its news capabilities are certainly limited, but enough for me to post
this message.
Thank you,
majales

 

[Susan Bugher]

Hi Susan. If you, who are maintaining the site, and YOU KNOW that something
is NOT freeware, then You have the obligation and the right to remove it
from the site. This is also the way Son Of Spy maintains his site; if he
finds anything with "strings attached," it is GONE.
I hope this little blurb of mine helps the situation that you are in. -PK-

Hi PuppyKatt,

SOS's web site is his own. pricelesswarehome.org is an ACF newsgroup
site. I have an obligation to ask for direction from the group. I've
done that. I also have the same obligations as SOS. If there is no group
consensus I will make the decision myself.

Thanks for the support.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

_Susan Bugher_, sabato 06/nov/2004:


I think that if you'd label Directory Lister as Adware, it would dilute the
meaning of Adware itself.

If the current ACF definition of Adware is not producing the desired
result => if *many* good programs must now be labeled Adware then we
should revise the definition.

If the current ACF definition of Adware is producing the desired result
=> most Adware programs are unacceptable then *one* good Adware program
is a special case.

IOW, now I'm avoiding adware ASAP, because I know what it means, then
instead I'd find myself to try even adware software because I don't know if
it has been labelled adware only for a "signature" or logo.

Notes can be used to identify special cases. See the description of this
PW2004 app:

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/PL2004INTERNET.php#0792-PW

Trillian
(Liteware) (Nagware - see comments)

COMMENTS: The nag screen appears after 1000 hours of use. It only
appears when new windows are opened (and not always then).

Sometimes being too strict causes an opposite effect.

In theory the Ware Glossary provides clear, unambiguous definitions of
various ware types. If definitions are confusioning they should be
revised. If definitions are clear they should be used.

If ware definitions are a matter of personal opinion then we should not
have a Ware Glossary.

JMHO

Susan

 

[Roger Johansson]

If the current ACF definition of Adware is not producing the desired
result

I think adware are programs which show ads for other products the the
program itself.

If the program shows ads or something similar for itself, or for a pay
version of the same program, it is better labeled as nagware.

Headers in mail-news progs saying what program was used to produce the
message are neither adware nor nagware, it is standard practice to add
such headers. The same goes for html editors.
There are partly technical reasons for this, it makes it easier to find
out what programs disturb the internet in some way.

I have not checked this but I guess also ftp-programs identify themselves
at the initial contact with a ftp server. And web browsers identify
themselves when calling a web server. This is a way to quickly
identify programs which cause problems.

 

[jo]

1. Remove or revise the Pricelessware Adware/Spware statement and add
"Adware" to Directory Lister's ware description.
Dunno

2. Remove Directory Lister from PL2004
No

3. Revise the Ware Glossary

Possibly, but I really don't know. There will always be grey areas.
There will be grey areas if the glossary is revised.

I see adware as being 'in your face' stuff like Opera or ICQ...

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote in <[email protected]>:

In this case you have arguments that goes both ways,

IMO the arguments against calling it Adware are arguments that the
definition of Adware is too broad. The remedy for that is a change in
the wording of the Adware definition.

The people who voted for Directory Lister think it should be on the
Pricelessware List. I have asked the group for direction. There has been
no support for Directory Lister's removal.

AFAIK Directory Lister is Adware. I will label it Adware. That will make
the statement "There are NO Adware/Spyware programs in the
Pricelessware List." untrue. I will remove the statement.

Those revisions will be made ASAP. Further discussion is welcome.
Further revisions will be made if the group consensus changes.

Susan

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher wrote:

Possibly, but I really don't know. There will always be grey areas.
There will be grey areas if the glossary is revised.

The glossary defines characterics that are common to *all* apps in a
ware type. It avoids with the grey areas.

Nagware is unacceptable for the Pricelessware List.

Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the software.
You must press a button to get past the nag screen.

That's a simple test to apply and to remember. If I say Nagware someone
who is familiar with the Ware Glossary knows exactly what I mean. I can
give *additional* information if I think it will be useful.

Splash screens are not classified as Nagware because splash screens vary
a great deal and there is no consensus in the newsgroup that *all*
Splash Screens are Nagware.

I see adware as being 'in your face' stuff like Opera or ICQ...

Our current definition of Adware may be too broad.

Susan

 

[MLC]

_Susan Bugher_, sabato 06/nov/2004:

If the current ACF definition of Adware is not producing the desired
result => if *many* good programs must now be labeled Adware then we
should revise the definition.

I think we should do it, even if it will not be easy.

If the current ACF definition of Adware is producing the desired result
=> most Adware programs are unacceptable then *one* good Adware program
is a special case.

Uhm, not sure to understand well. I don't think it's wise to permit special
cases: we'd fall in another discussion about what and when a program is a
special case or not.

[...]

In theory the Ware Glossary provides clear, unambiguous definitions of
various ware types. If definitions are confusioning they should be
revised. If definitions are clear they should be used.

Are not the definitions themselves to be ambiguous (I'm sure this is wrong
English, I hope understandable though!), they can be perfectly clear: the
programs are not always easy classifiable.

If ware definitions are a matter of personal opinion then we should not
have a Ware Glossary.

No, we need to agree with the definitions, and the Ware Glossary is helpful.
We could discuss a new definition of adware in a specific thread, maybe
after these ballot days.
About your removal of "There are NO Adware/Spyware programs in the
Pricelessware List.", I think you could write "There are NO Spyware
programs in the Pricelessware List." for these few days, until we'll reach a
consensus.

Ciao

 

[Susan Bugher]

_Susan Bugher_, sabato 06/nov/2004:

I don't think it's wise to permit special
cases: we'd fall in another discussion about what and when a program is a
special case or not.

We already argue about special cases. We have a Ware Ballot for the PL
to settle arguments about special cases.

Like it or not there will always be special cases - programs that are
not easy to classify - programs that are significantly different from
other apps of the same ware type.

Trillian is Nagware. Trillian is on the Pricelessware List. ACF voters
said that a Nagware program that does not nag at all in the first 1000
hours of use is significantly different from typical Nagware programs.
Trillian is a special case.

Are not the definitions themselves to be ambiguous (I'm sure this is wrong
English, I hope understandable though!), they can be perfectly clear: the
programs are not always easy classifiable.

Agreed. Those programs are special cases.

About your removal of "There are NO Adware/Spyware programs in the
Pricelessware List.", I think you could write "There are NO Spyware
programs in the Pricelessware List." for these few days, until we'll reach a
consensus.

I expect there will be a post about the Spyware programs on the PL
tomorrow.

Susan