Response from the author of 40tude Dialog

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

A beta that expires and is not replaced by another
freeware version would not be freeware.

Nice use of the present tense "is." What you are talking about is in
the unknowable future (unless there is something good going on in that
"secrets of the psychics" thread, which I killed). Many things could
happen between now and the expiry, some of which would prevent another
release.

 

[Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=]

Hello,


Le 22/10/2003 à 11:57:01, Onno écrivait :

Yes, but in order to act in accordance with that spirit one needs to
understand it.

don't you agree that the spirit is more or less to be consistent in this
group and discuss only freeware and not illegal or commercial products.

You do not seem to.

Only utter assumptions ;-)

And just to give you another theme of reflection, how can you be sure that
a freeware is not time limited if you don't have the sources ?

Do you know how tricky people can be, particularly French ? ;-)

 

[tlshell]

Nice use of the present tense "is." What you are talking about is in
the unknowable future (unless there is something good going on in that
"secrets of the psychics" thread, which I killed). Many things could
happen between now and the expiry, some of which would prevent another
release.

In that case, it'd be deadware, now wouldn't it? Frankly, I don't see
the point of worrying about something that hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Onno]

Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=

Le 22/10/2003 à 11:57:01, Onno écrivait :


don't you agree that the spirit is more or less to be consistent in
this group and discuss only freeware and not illegal or commercial
products.

This is way too broad to describe the spirit of this 'rule'.

Only utter assumptions ;-)

Clearly not. Just read the above.

And just to give you another theme of reflection,

Or is it just to hide the fact that you don't have any valid arguments?

how can you be sure
that a freeware is not time limited if you don't have the sources ?

In that case it isn't freeware of course, so what's the point? Anyway,
eventually the truth will come out. Just like with Dialog.

Do you know how tricky people can be, particularly French ? ;-)

Yes I do and I don't need you to demonstrate it.

 

[Alain GUERIN]

Hello,

This is way too broad to describe the spirit of this 'rule'.

Clearly not. Just read the above.

You are very good for assumptions. But if you are ready to discuss the
goodness of the rule "a time limited freeware is not a freeware" with the spirit
of protecting this group from deviation I am ready to add a lot of rules to try
to better define this spirit, even if I think that no spirit can fit in rules.

Or is it just to hide the fact that you don't have any valid arguments?

That is typical. When I try to show you another way to think about the same
thing, you and other sticking to the rules think that I have no valid
arguments. I understand only that you don't agree with my arguments. But I
am always speaking of the time limited limitation.

When I say that there where already time limited product discussed here, the
answer was: yes but the rule is not applicable for time limited by nature
programs. When I said that time limitation is not something that is only for
freeware and when there is a time limited payware, that does not change the
fact that the payware stays what it is, people following the rule want not
change their mind : time limitation does not change nature of other software
but freeware. When I said that other programs discussed here could also be
limited in use you rejected the argument as not valid speeking of apples or
oranges ( and I agree that is a bit limit, but just showing you that the
definition is not enough as it needs an interpretation ) so I go back to the
time limited argument and you don't see it and said that I am short of
arguments !

If a product is secretly time limited, you agree to discuss it here and not
to follow me when I say that this risk must limit the discussion to
products where you have sources. And you are ready to wait until it is
lately discovered as a time limited freeware and, I suppose, stop
discuss it here.

When we have a product like Dialog where the author said the final version
will be freeware, who already delivered many updated versions and clearly
said he his fixing the last bugs before delivering the first final freeware
version, you (or other following JC) say that the risk to have a non freeware
final version is enough to avoid to discuss this program. If you are so careful,
why don't you limit the discussion to program with sources to be sure they
will never be time limited or destroying your data if you don't pay for it ? Why
be careful when you only have the time limitation of a beta (that can be
reasonably considered as a time limitation by nature for beta) and will not
believe the author, even after this author did it's best to change the
information so people are informed before loading the program that it is at a
time limited beta version.

For me, it is more a question of words for you: you prefer to follow rules
than adapt them, at least not officially, even when a case is border line
for the definition but clearly a true freeware to the eyes of a great
majority of its users (perhaps the donators are considering it is worth
paying for such a software ;-).

Yes I do and I don't need you to demonstrate it.

For your information, smileys have their importance, particularly when a
sentence that was not directed against the reader is returned against the
writer without a smiley.

You are perhaps better than me in argumentation on English words, but if
your aim is just to explain that rules are perfect even if arguments showed
their weaknesses ( I don't say they are false, but they have to be interpreted
to follow the life ) I am afraid that you are not inspired by the same spirit that
I am inspired by.

But finally, you will be the winner as, when Dialog final version will be
delivered, their will be no more discussion for this program.

But I will perhaps not be here to discuss it, exactly like people who are
rejected by a moderator from a group only for expressing an opinion that
not fit the moderator opinion, but is not really against the spirit of the
group will not come back to this group, even if he has answers for the
participants.

The defender of the law is not always in his right ;-)

 

[Onno]

Hello,

This is way too broad to describe the spirit of this 'rule'.

Clearly not. Just read the above.

[snip]
When I try to show you another way to think about the
same thing, you and other sticking to the rules think that I have no
valid arguments. I understand only that you don't agree with my
arguments.

A misunderstanding. I'll try to explain again.

But I am always speaking of the time limited limitation.

All right. I think I understood this .

When I say that there where already time limited product discussed
here, the answer was: yes but the rule is not applicable for time
limited by nature programs.

Are you referring to this? :

Alain =?iso-8859-15?Q?Gu=E9rin?=

I had two other antivirus programs in the
past that were said to be freeware. The first disappears after the
firm was bought by another antivirus company that stoped this policy
and the second one stoped the free virus updates. It is always
possible to use it now, but with a virus list that is more than two
year old, it's far from useful.

That's unfortunately the nature of AV software.
[end quote]

This was a specific case, AV software. The AV software you downloaded was
and still is freeware. The probable uselessness of that software without
new virus definitions does not make it any less freeware. You can still
use it if you want, whenever you want.

With Dialog that is not the case. After the expiration date you can no
longer use a time-limited beta version. The fact that there is ANOTHER
time-limited beta available for download makes no difference.
For people on a dial-up connection it is quite annoying to have to
download another 4,5 MB, just to continue to use a product.

More importantly, people may not want to use the new version. They may
prefer to use a previous beta version for whatever reason they have. With
freeware they can do that. But they are not free to do so with Dialog,
because it is time-limited. Therefore it is not freeware.

When I said that time limitation is not
something that is only for freeware and when there is a time limited
payware, that does not change the fact that the payware stays what it
is,

[snip]

Are you saying that a time limitation makes payware any less payware? You
have to pay for it, so it is payware. Or do you get your money back
after the expiry date?
Your quantity of arguments does not make up for their lack of validity.

If a product is secretly time limited, you agree to discuss it here
and not to follow me when I say that this risk must limit the
discussion to products where you have sources. And you are ready to
wait until it is lately discovered as a time limited freeware and, I
suppose, stop discuss it here.

'secret' means that people don't know about something. How do you expect
people to act on something they don't know about?

When we have a product like Dialog where the author said the final
version will be freeware, who already delivered many updated versions
and clearly said he his fixing the last bugs before delivering the
first final freeware version, you (or other following JC) say that the
risk to have a non freeware final version is enough to avoid to
discuss this program.

I did not say that, If you had paid any attention to and/or understood
what I have written, you would have known I have said the opposite.
Your assumption that I follow JC is ridiculous.
[snip]

For me, it is more a question of words for you:

[snip]
Words have a meaning and I doubt that you completely understand them.

Yes I do and I don't need you to demonstrate it.

[snip]
You are perhaps better than me in argumentation on English words,

Yes, but more importantly, I am better at understanding those English
words. Sorry (really) if I appear condescending, but I sincerely doubt
that you completely understand what this discussion is about.

but
if your aim is just to explain that rules are perfect

Not at all. Don't worry. But I think the freeware definition is a good
one.

I am afraid that you
are not inspired by the same spirit that I am inspired by.

That's not a problem I hope.

But finally, you will be the winner as, when Dialog final version will
be delivered, their will be no more discussion for this program.

[snip]

It's the other way around. There will at last be a freeware version for
the people at a.c.f. to discuss .

 

[John Fitzsimons]

More importantly, people may not want to use the new version.

Whether someone wants to, or doesn't want to, download a program
doesn't change whether it is/isn't freeware.

They may
prefer to use a previous beta version for whatever reason they have.

Whether people like/don't like previous betas doesn't change the
status of current releases.

With
freeware they can do that. But they are not free to do so with Dialog,
because it is time-limited. Therefore it is not freeware.

< snip >

It is time limited. Time limited freeware.

Regards, John.

 

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

It is time limited. Time limited freeware.

John, you've snipped away all of Onno's arguments in order to respond
with pure drivel and restate your opinion. I'm glad you got Marcus to
clear things up so that people are now informed before having to DL
Dialog, but isn't it about time to let it go at that?

 

[Alain GUERIN]

Hello,


On 25 Oct 2003 15:57:23 GMT, Onno wrote:

[106 quoted lines suppressed]

Words have a meaning and I doubt that you completely understand them.

Doubt is the beginning of a wise behavior. ;-)

[8 quoted lines suppressed]

Yes, but more importantly, I am better at understanding those English
words. Sorry (really) if I appear condescending, but I sincerely doubt
that you completely understand what this discussion is about.

As usual, you inverse the way logic is working.

As you are better than me in English, it is easier to understand you than
me.

But I am able to understand very well your good English.

So to be almost sure to be understood, I will try to answer with very simple
words.

A freeware is a free of charge software opposite to a pay ware.

A pay ware is always a pay ware being time limited or not, as time limit
does not change the nature of software.

A legal product is product that is not in contradiction with laws,

A warez is a product where limitations are broken illegally.

Warez and illegal products don't have to be discussed here.

Beta are pre-release products where bugs are more frequent and, generally,
more dangerous than in final versions.

Final versions don't have different features than beta versions, only less
bugs.

Threads on beta version of freeware are allowed in this group.

There are limited freeware:

Freeware for private use are limited to private people, but can be discuss
here.

Time limited freeware are limited in time and you think they cannot be
discuss here, *even if they finally will be delivered as freeware in final
version with a near 100% probability*.

You think that time limited freeware must not be discuss here.

If you exclude time limited products, except time limited by nature product,
you have to be sure a product is not time limited (except by nature). One
way is to discuss only programs that are delivered with the code source
so you can see if they are time limited or not. (Or you will accept the risk
to discuss products that have not a 100% probability to be freeware with
your definition. But you rejected this risk for Dialog)

There is another way, as I am about to deliver a freeware, for private
persons except you and JC. As an author of freeware, I can limit the use of
my product to special people or groups.

This (limited) freeware will analyse a program and say if the program is
time limited or not. So it will not be necessary to have the code source and
it will help people in this group, but you and JC.

As you don't discuss warez, you will not be allowed to discuss about my
limited freeware.

As you don't discuss time limited freeware, you will not know if you are
able to discuss about my freeware here (I will not tell anybody if it is time
limited or not and it is not "analyzable" by itself).

Not only because it is time limited or not ( and you will not be able to
know if it is or not ) but even, as it is not already available, it is a limited
freeware by nature (as it could be vaporware). ;-)

Do you follow me when I say that a definition can hardly fit all situations,
not to say that it is as painful to read manual than to download a new
version, even if it does not make not self understandable freeware, not
true freeware ?

Sorry, I stop writing simple things with simple words ;-)

[4 quoted lines suppressed]

Not at all. Don't worry. But I think the freeware definition is a good
one.

That is where I think your are following J.C.

The one anybody can find in dictionary is.

Yours forbids you to discuss here about programs I categorize as freeware
and you don't, except if you are thinking we are trolling.

In that case, I will stop answering as I am not happy to disturb people with
messages they don't want to discuss (see the [meta] tag).

And I will only be wondering why Dialog can be so efficiently discussed in
news.sofware.readers if it is not a freeware, at least by a not limited
definition. ;-)

[12 quoted lines suppressed]


So please, I hope that, in the future, people following your definition of
freeware will tell people, writing about Dialog here, that is better to
discuss this product in news.sofware.readers, and not only that is not
a freeware and it could not be discussed here.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

And I will only be wondering why Dialog can be so efficiently discussed in
news.sofware.readers if it is not a freeware, at least by a not limited
definition. ;-)

That's a pretty silly thing to wonder, since ANY news clients are
on-topic in news.software.readers, even payware clients. You've been
working so hard on your rebuttals, here, that you seem to have thought
yourself into being blind to the very, very obvious.

 

[Onno]

Whether someone wants to, or doesn't want to, download a program
doesn't change whether it is/isn't freeware.
So?


Whether people like/don't like previous betas doesn't change the
status of current releases.

Have you got more non sequiturs up your sleeve John?

< snip >

It is time limited. Time limited freeware.

Apparantly not. Only your home-made oxymoron.

The fact that you like a program does not make it freeware.

No matter how hard you try.
No matter how many 'freeware' terms you invent.
No matter how many oxymorons you sling into this group.
Live with it. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 25 Oct 2003, Onno wrote

-snip-

When I said that time limitation is not
something that is only for freeware and when there is a time
limited payware, that does not change the fact that the payware
stays what it is,

[snip]

Are you saying that a time limitation makes payware any less
payware? You have to pay for it, so it is payware. Or do you get
your money back after the expiry date?

I think his point is pretty well the exact opposite of that: he's
saying that (a) whether it's time-limited or not time-limited, payware
clearly remains payware; therefore (b) the same principle must apply
to freeware: whether time-limited or not time-limited, freeware
remains freeware.

On the face of it, the view seems logical enough: a time limitation
does not change the nature of a ware: payware is payware; freeware is
freeware; time-limited payware remains payware; therefore time-
limited freeware must logically remain freeware.

It's different to non-time-limited freeware -- just as time-limited
payware is different to non-time-limited payware -- but that doesn't
make it "non-freeware".

 

[Onno]

On 25 Oct 2003 15:57:23 GMT, Onno wrote:

[106 quoted lines suppressed]

Words have a meaning and I doubt that you completely understand them.

Doubt is the beginning of a wise behavior. ;-)

[8 quoted lines suppressed]

As usual, you inverse the way logic is working.

Once again, you're being presumptuous.

As you are better than me in English, it is easier to understand you
than me.

But I am able to understand very well your good English.

You think you understand it very well, you are wrong.

And your logic does not necessarily apply. When I went to France years
ago, the French could understand my school French, but I had a hard time
understanding theirs.

So to be almost sure to be understood, I will try to answer with very
simple words.

A freeware is a free of charge software opposite to a pay ware.

This definition is incomplete.
[snip]

Time limited freeware are limited in time and you think they cannot be
discuss here, [snip]
You think that time limited freeware must not be discuss here.

Not true.
You clearly demonstrate here that you do not understand my good English
very well.

[snip]

you will accept the risk to discuss products that have not a 100%
probability to be freeware with your definition. But you rejected this
risk for Dialog)

Once again you did not understand. We KNOW that Dialog is time limited.
AFAIK, the author has presented it as such from the start, although he
should have done it in a more obvious way. So this risk does not exist
with Dialog

There is another way, as I am about to deliver a freeware, for private
persons except you and JC.

If this is true you're really making too big a deal of this discussion.
If not, you're just inventing arguments.

[snip]

Do you follow me when I say that a definition can hardly fit all
situations,

So? The problem is not in the definition. The point is that Dialog does
not fit the definition of freeware. And I wouldn't even call that a
problem. It's just a simple conclusion.

[snip]

That is where I think your are following J.C.

Then you misunderstood. Again.


[snip]

And I will only be wondering why Dialog can be so efficiently
discussed in news.sofware.readers if it is not a freeware, at least
by a not limited definition. ;-)

[snip]

That's because in n.s.r any news reader is on-topic.
If you fail to understand that you shouldn't be discussing definitions.

 

[dkg_ctc]

*snip*

Apparantly not. Only your home-made oxymoron.

The fact that you like a program does not make it freeware.

No matter how hard you try.
No matter how many 'freeware' terms you invent.
No matter how many oxymorons you sling into this group.

That's not your decision to make--it's the group's decision, and
seeing as how the group has voted Dialog as not only freeware but
Pricelessware, I'd say the decicion has already been made.

 

[Alain GUERIN]

Hello,

That's a pretty silly thing to wonder, since ANY news clients are
on-topic in news.software.readers, even payware clients. You've been
working so hard on your rebuttals, here, that you seem to have thought
yourself into being blind to the very, very obvious.

You are right ! My mistake :-/

My aim was only to add a note of humor and I lost the logic of the
discussion.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Have you got more non sequiturs up your sleeve John?

It's hard to beat The Fitzsimons Classic: If an offline news client
isn't an online news client, it's crippled.

 

[Onno]

*snip*

That's not your decision to make--it's the group's decision,

It is not a matter of making a decision. It is a matter of checking
whether a program fits a definition. As has been explained several times
now, Dialog does not fit the definition of freeware. That's all.

and
seeing as how the group has voted Dialog as not only freeware but
Pricelessware,

[snip]

The group has voted Dialog as pricelessware. However from reading some
posts lately, it seems that a program does not have to fit the definition
of freeware. More importantly, Dialog has been voted pricelessware a long
time ago, when the time limitation was not yet this widely known.
People who nominated or voted for it didn't realize the consequences of
the time limitation or didn't care about it. They liked the program.
Now that the time limitation of Dialog is more apparent, it has already
been said that Dialog should be removed from the pricelessware list, as
long as there is no freeware version. While I agree with that, I do not
decide about it. I don't even campaign for it. If the people who decide
leave it on the list, so be it. All I am saying is that the current time
limited beta of Dialog is not freeware.

 

[Onno]

It's hard to beat The Fitzsimons Classic

Perhaps he'll beat his PB some day.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

The group has voted Dialog as pricelessware. However from reading some
posts lately, it seems that a program does not have to fit the
definition of freeware. More importantly, Dialog has been voted
pricelessware a long time ago, when the time limitation was not yet
this widely known.

Was that time limitation even *in place* in the program a year ago, when
we last voted?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Perhaps he'll beat his PB some day.

Princess bride?

Peanut butter?