[PL] PL2005 Ware Issues

[Susan Bugher]

How detailed a debate does any one want to engage just to dispose of a
Microsoft product, which shares equal merit against any other program in
its classification?

Come on now Ben. You should know better than that. This debate is about
legality, not the sins of MS. The anti-MS crowd is not shy about
speaking their minds - they don't need a pretext to hide behind.

FWIW - this is my take on the subject.

System *requirements* and legal *prohibitions* are very different
animals. A EULA that *restricts* the use of the software is a whole
nother thing from a statement that says "we think you need this OS to
run the app sucessfully".

You are allowed to use Freeware on any system. A Freeware author may
advise you that WIN XP is required for satisfactory operation. He does
not prohibit you from running the app on WIN 3x or Linux or Unix - in
fact, he would probably be delighted if you were sucessful in doing so.

I intend to vote against OE on the ware ballot. I imagine your vote will
cancel out mine.

Susan

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

<
This branch of the thread was discussing the Mac version of OE, but
I take it you are talking about the Windows version again.

According to "alt.comp.freeware's Ware Glossary", which I assume
has passed earlier scrutiny by those who are concerned, states-
"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no
cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

Of course, this can be interpreted any number of ways.
Outlook Express is legally obtainable, I can use it at no cost
(which I define as no cost beyond that hardware and software I've
chosen to use), and I can use it as long as *I wish*.

In "no cost beyond that hardware and software I've chosen to use",
you'd have to include the cost of the software itself. Once you've
bought the licence for IE/OE, of course you can use it without
additional cost. But this is also true of other commercial
software.

I suppose the real bugbear is the part where it says, "monetary or
otherwise".

Yeah, the part about having to pay money for it is a sticky one
here.

How detailed a debate does any one want to engage just to dispose
of a Microsoft product, which shares equal merit against any other
program in its classification?

The relative merit of the program is beside the point. There are
several commercial software apps I use and consider to be better
than or equal to the pricelessware in their categories, but I don't
pretend that people should consider them to be freeware on that
basis.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Of course, this can be interpreted any number of ways.
Outlook Express is legally obtainable, I can use it at no cost

< snip >

You cannot use it at no cost. You need to purchase windows first. If
you have not paid for windows then it is illegal to use OE.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Ben Cooper]

Come on now Ben. You should know better than that. This debate is
about legality, not the sins of MS. The anti-MS crowd is not shy about
speaking their minds - they don't need a pretext to hide behind.

I do believe it is an excuse. This discussion wasn't held during last
year's nominations and vote, and in fact Outlook Express won. There
seems to be little doubt that this year it will not even be eligible, if
only by a dubious interpretation of an EULA.

FWIW - this is my take on the subject.

System *requirements* and legal *prohibitions* are very different
animals. A EULA that *restricts* the use of the software is a whole
nother thing from a statement that says "we think you need this OS to
run the app sucessfully".

I completely disagree with you about this. If any of these objections
were valid I believe they would have been raised last year. This is an
attempt to keep a legitimate, and free, program from competing against
non-MS software. Obviously, there are many of us who feel Outlook
Express is the best program in its category.

You are allowed to use Freeware on any system. A Freeware author may
advise you that WIN XP is required for satisfactory operation. He does
not prohibit you from running the app on WIN 3x or Linux or Unix - in
fact, he would probably be delighted if you were sucessful in doing
so.

I suppose, then, that the IE shells, or any other programs that require
IE, on the Pricelessware list are now invalid as they *require* you to
have IE installed. And, of course, requiring IE to be installed requires
you to purchase a Windows license.

I intend to vote against OE on the ware ballot. I imagine your vote
will cancel out mine.

I believe I will follow stan's example for calling a vote. I'm calling
for a vote, here and now, that Susan's vote's are only worth one quarter
of my vote!

 

[Ben Cooper]

<
This branch of the thread was discussing the Mac version of OE, but
I take it you are talking about the Windows version again.

I take it you chose to ignore the quoted part of my reply which referred
to the a.c.f/pricelessware definition of freeware which brings Windows
applications back into the discussion.

In "no cost beyond that hardware and software I've chosen to use",
you'd have to include the cost of the software itself. Once you've
bought the licence for IE/OE, of course you can use it without
additional cost. But this is also true of other commercial
software.

Well, I guess I *am* in the mood for a long, drawn out discussion which
doesn't change anyone's opinion.
I didn't purchase Outlook Express. I purchased Windows. Outlook Express
is legally available to me. I can use Outlook Express, as a *program*,
at no *monetary* cost to me. I can use it as long as I wish.
It meets ALL of the a.c.f/pricelessware requirements for freeware.

Yeah, the part about having to pay money for it is a sticky one
here.

I feel the "sticky part" is the part where it says "otherwise". The word
"otherwise" is so vague as to its meaning that it can be interpreted any
number of ways.

The relative merit of the program is beside the point. There are
several commercial software apps I use and consider to be better
than or equal to the pricelessware in their categories, but I don't
pretend that people should consider them to be freeware on that
basis.

I'd hazard to guess, though, that those programs don't meet
a.c.f/pricelessware's definition of freeware- "Legally obtainable
software that you may use at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long
as you wish."
I maintain that Outlook Express *does* meet those requirements and
should be eligible for nomination to the Pricelessware list.
Whether it wins or not... well, that could be determined by the vote.

 

[Mike Andrade]

Susan Bugher <[email protected]> wrote:

Gee, two ego-maniacal chowderheads trying to out-stupid one another.
What a surprise.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

As OE comes with Windows I believe it should not be eligable.
I believe the PL should be about adding freeware to your system, not
about a popularity contest between built-in and third party ware.
People visit the PL site to learn about freeware out there, not about
built-in ware.

On the other hand, MS Powertools for instance, are not part of the
system and should be eligable, apart from the EULA issue (which I
consider to be a non-issue).

Another thing is that OE has security problems that are just too big at
least for the clueless.
That alone is reason enough to consider it ineligable for Pricelessware.
For the clueless it comes at a price.

 

[JanC]

Ben Cooper schreef:

by a dubious interpretation of an EULA.

The EULA is in plain English, and there is nothing to "dubiously
interpret" (at least not about that part of it).

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I take it you chose to ignore the quoted part of my reply which
referred to the a.c.f/pricelessware definition of freeware which
brings Windows applications back into the discussion.

I read it, but it didn't occur to me that quoting the a.c.f Ware
Glossary would magically change which software was under
disscussion.

Well, I guess I *am* in the mood for a long, drawn out discussion
which doesn't change anyone's opinion.

Only three more weeks until voting time.

I didn't purchase Outlook Express. I purchased Windows. Outlook
Express is legally available to me. I can use Outlook Express, as
a *program*, at no *monetary* cost to me.

OE is only legally available to you because you purchased a licence
which grants you the right to use it. I don't see how you can
maintain that some of the software covered by the purchased licence
was free and some was not free; the licence you bought for it makes
no such distinction.

I can use it as long as I wish.
It meets ALL of the a.c.f/pricelessware requirements for freeware.


I feel the "sticky part" is the part where it says "otherwise".
The word "otherwise" is so vague as to its meaning that it can be
interpreted any number of ways.

I agree that it's a bit vague, but since you and I disagree about
whether there is /monetary/ cost in obtaining a the right to use OE, I
reckon that part need not affect this discussion. If the definition
needs revision, I guess it will be revised next year. (Susan, we do
that once a year, right?)

I'd hazard to guess, though, that those programs don't meet
a.c.f/pricelessware's definition of freeware- "Legally obtainable
software that you may use at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for
as long as you wish."

Thanks for bringing it back to the question of whether or not it's
freeware.

I maintain that Outlook Express *does* meet those requirements and
should be eligible for nomination to the Pricelessware list.
Whether it wins or not... well, that could be determined by the
vote.

Could be. The votes on eligibility are concurrent with the rest of the
voting, so OE proponents will vote on it whether or not it's judged to
be eligible.

 

[Ben Cooper]

I read it, but it didn't occur to me that quoting the a.c.f Ware
Glossary would magically change which software was under
disscussion.

Perhaps it was the same magic spell that made my quote disappear from
your reply.

Only three more weeks until voting time.

ACK! Forget it... I'm only challenging the reason why it should be
arbitrarily dismissed.
I'm not that passionate about it.
If enough people want to allow it to the list it will happen.
If not, then I'll just have to remember the "good old days" of 2004 when
a high quality, free program was still eligible to be considered
Pricelessware.

OE is only legally available to you because you purchased a licence
which grants you the right to use it. I don't see how you can
maintain that some of the software covered by the purchased licence
was free and some was not free; the licence you bought for it makes
no such distinction.


I agree that it's a bit vague, but since you and I disagree about
whether there is /monetary/ cost in obtaining a the right to use OE, I
reckon that part need not affect this discussion. If the definition
needs revision, I guess it will be revised next year. (Susan, we do
that once a year, right?)

Yes, IMO, there is no cost for obtaining and using Outlook Express. The
"otherwise" I'm considering is the argument that it can't be freeware
because I can't use it anywhere I wish.

Thanks for bringing it back to the question of whether or not it's
freeware.

Happy to oblige. Did I happen to mention that I think OE meets those
requirements?

Oops. My bad. I see that I did mention it.

Could be. The votes on eligibility are concurrent with the rest of
the voting, so OE proponents will vote on it whether or not it's
judged to be eligible.

God, I hate primaries.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Perhaps it was the same magic spell that made my quote disappear
from your reply.

That enchantment is affecting your eyes, not these posts. That quote
has been part of every reply you and I have made since you posted it.
It's up to five quote levels with this post.

There it is again.

ACK! Forget it... I'm only challenging the reason why it should be
arbitrarily dismissed.

If it were actually arbitrary, there would be no reason for you to have
challenged; that's what 'arbitrary' means. This decision shouldn't be
made arbitrarily, and I trust it won't. Plenty of reasons on which
people can base their decisions have been posted in this thread.

I'm not that passionate about it.

So you say.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

These programs have been previously mentioned:

NetLaunch - XP version shareware?
Free Agent - crippleware?
Trillian - nagware?
Outlook Express - not Freeware?

Comments?

C4U was left off the 2003 PL on grounds that it was spyware. The
discussion part of the process from December 2002 can be found at
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2F321C79>. Now C4U is abandonware,
and I don't know anything about its spyware status.

 

[Susan Bugher]

C4U was left off the 2003 PL on grounds that it was spyware. The
discussion part of the process from December 2002 can be found at
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?E2F321C79>. Now C4U is abandonware,
and I don't know anything about its spyware status.

Thanks Q.

I think it would be helpful to include brief "Acceptable because" and
"Unacceptable because" statements on the ware ballot.

Perhaps you and Ben Cooper could draft the opposing sides for OE?

Please note there will be only *one* ware ballot this year.

Susan

 

[Ben Cooper]

That enchantment is affecting your eyes, not these posts. That quote
has been part of every reply you and I have made since you posted it.
It's up to five quote levels with this post.

Ahem.
*My* quote was-

B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:


There is a definition of "freeware" for a.c.f/pricelessware which
says "no restrictions on usage". Your (or my!) opinion doesn't
matter until there's an a.c.f vote to change that definition."

You might want to arrange an appointment with your optometrist.

There it is again.

No, there's *you* quoting my reply without including the text I was
replying to.
I know you prefer style over substance, but please, at least get the
quoting right.

If it were actually arbitrary, there would be no reason for you to
have challenged; that's what 'arbitrary' means. This decision
shouldn't be made arbitrarily, and I trust it won't. Plenty of
reasons on which people can base their decisions have been posted in
this thread.

Don't you just love language?
Arbitrary - "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."
You've arbitrarily dismissed OE as a candidate for the Pricelessware
list.
C'mon. Admit it. It won't hurt.

So you say.

Perhaps... though I suspect we enjoy arguing about it more than whether
it actually makes it to "The List".

So, again, I'll state my opinion: Outlook Express meets the standards
for acf's definition of freeware, "Legally obtainable software that you
may use at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

 

[Ben Cooper]

Thanks Q.

I think it would be helpful to include brief "Acceptable because" and
"Unacceptable because" statements on the ware ballot.

Perhaps you and Ben Cooper could draft the opposing sides for OE?

Please note there will be only *one* ware ballot this year.

I've already drafted my view of why Outlook Express should be included.

Outlook Express should be included because it meets
a.c.f/pricelessware's definition of freeware-
"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

I've already drafted my view of why Outlook Express should be included.

Outlook Express should be included because it meets
a.c.f/pricelessware's definition of freeware-
"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

Correct me if I am wrong Ben, but isn't Windows licensed, not sold?
And if so, you can not use OE for as long as you wish, but only for as
long as MS wishes, no?

All the best
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[Roger Johansson]

Correct me if I am wrong Ben, but isn't Windows licensed, not sold?
And if so, you can not use OE for as long as you wish, but only for as
long as MS wishes, no?

If, somehow, MS would stop all windows version from working tomorrow
then practically all of the freeware programs we talk about would stop
working.

So we can only use these freeware programs for as long as MS wishes, yes.

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

So, again, I'll state my opinion: Outlook Express meets the standards
for acf's definition of freeware, "Legally obtainable software that you
may use at no cost, monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

May I go back to my quotation of the two different EULA's for IE/OE?
The version for Windows is called 'OS COMPONENT' while the version for
Mac is named 'SOFTWARE PRODUCT'. Hence there can be no question about
OE for Windows *not* being freeware! That JanC and I disagree upon the
Mac version is just a different thing...

As I said before: MS had *very* good reasons to *not release* IE/OE
for Windows as freeware, anymore. They would encounter a very strong
lawsuit if doing so!

BeAr

 

[Bjorn Simonsen]

If, somehow, MS would stop all windows version from working tomorrow
then practically all of the freeware programs we talk about would stop
working.

So we can only use these freeware programs for as long as MS wishes, yes.

Right, but that does not relate to the freeware license of
freeware/3.party apps, does it? Let us assume MS would "sabotage"
Windows, somehow make it not run, then yes - I can no longer use
Windows. But that does not make the 3.party freeware apps I have
collected illegal. In other words I can still use the freeware I have
collected if somehow I can fix Windows or run it via an emulator and
what not. Point being, whether Windows works or not, or if I have a
legal Windows licence or not, is irrelevant to the legal/freeware
status of other 3.party software. Or put differently; 3.party
freeware/software might require Windows to run, but does not require
a valid Windows license as such. OE on the other hand does, it seems.

All the best,
Bjorn Simonsen

 

[omega]

Right, but that does not relate to the freeware license of
freeware/3.party apps, does it? Let us assume MS would "sabotage"
Windows, somehow make it not run, then yes - I can no longer use
Windows. But that does not make the 3.party freeware apps I have
collected illegal. In other words I can still use the freeware I have
collected if somehow I can fix Windows or run it via an emulator and
what not.

Right. And it is strange to see in this thread that a few would try to
muddle the distinction of Legally Permitted VS Can (physically can).

Examples of the irrelevant Can:

I "can" use any shareware out there (even bulk of those with embedded with
time-outs, if I keep my registry cleaned) for as long as I might choose.
But I am not legally permitted to do so. They are not freeware.

I "cannot" use a freeware that so buggy that it terminates with an error
right after launch. Yet it is still freeware.

In <[email protected]> BeAr posted the
IE/OE license...

| IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (INCLUDING,
[...]
| YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS
| COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

My legal permission -- which is the exact issue here for determining
ware status -- regarding IE/OE, it's inextricably bound up with purchasing
a commercial OS license.

Point being, whether Windows works or not, or if I have a
legal Windows licence or not, is irrelevant to the legal/freeware
status of other 3.party software. Or put differently; 3.party
freeware/software might require Windows to run, but does not require
a valid Windows license as such. OE on the other hand does, it seems.

If someone dredges up a third-party product that says we do not have
permission to use it unless we have a commercial OS license for each
machine where we might install it, then I would equally declare that
product to not be freeware.

I've heard of none so far. It is the case here of OE where we have
that, and it is very clear. Legally, OE for Windows is explicitly
not freeware.