If there are any $$$-ware programs on the nominations list please post
the name of the program *now*. TIA

Some PL2004 nominations are controversial.

Please post the names of programs you feel are unsuitable for the
Pricelessware list - and list the grounds for your objection: Spyware,
Adware, Trialware etc. etc.

Rather than have an overly prolonged discussion I think we should have
ballots for: acceptable and not acceptable. These would be in addition
to the usual ballot where we vote *for* a program.

If someone posts an objection to a program that program will be put on
the acceptable/ not acceptable ballots.

Those two ballots will be used to determine if a program is *eligible*
for the Pricelessware list - a majority for *unacceptable* would be
cause for removal from further consideration.

I suggest two ballots to simplify counting the vote. The seconding of
carryover nominations went well and this would be a similar procedure.
If a program is acceptable leave it on the acceptable ballot. If a
program is unacceptable leave it on the not acceptable ballot.

Comments?

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

Susan Bugher <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in
news:vr2f4adpg80kd9@corp.supernews.com:

Susan Bugher <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in news:vr2f4adpg80kd9
@corp.supernews.com:

Dialog
because it's time limited.

--
Onno

On 12 Nov 2003 12:14:14 GMT, Onno <ok-NOSPAMww1@SVPxs4all.nl> wrote:

Not time limited if you replace it with the next beta. Your own fault
(not Dialog's) if you are too lazy to do that.

John Fitzsimons <qdddy5q02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
<news:brb5rv41juvu5egvvg44epc0hj4qd66cr3@4ax.com>:

Please reread Susan's OP in this thread. It's not for discussion of
the programs, it's for putting things on the removal ballot and for
discussion of the idea of a removal ballot itself.

I like the idea. In the past, we have cast "no" votes if there has
been a program that possibly needed removal; the "no" votes were cast
along with the regular ballots, and then any app with a "no" vote was
examined further during the post-vote discussions. With Susan's
suggestion, these examinations can take place during the pre-vote
discussion, and each case can be settled by voting.

--
»Q« It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you
mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers.
It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and
likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

John Fitzsimons wrote:

Hello John,

I think we've been down that road a time or two already. Some people
agree with you, some don't.

Some programs just don't want to fit neatly in the usual categories.

Do you object to having a vote to decide whether controversial programs
should be eligible for Pricelessware?

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:34:28 GMT, John Fitzsimons posted to
alt.comp.freeware:

What was that? All I heard was "Blah, blah, blah."



--
I have nothing to say, and I say it often.

"Onno" <ok-NOSPAMww1@SVPxs4all.nl> wrote in message news:Xns943186DABA9E2zgm647@194.109.133.18...
At the risk of being very unpopular - Kaza Lite

for the reasons given here -

news:MrQ9416BD3B8765DitsmeitsQ@QsFQDN.dyndns.org

Or if it is listed it should be categorised as hackware
not freeware.

"Mel" <news.20.spammel@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
<news:boukos$1i42t5$1@ID-145538.news.uni-berlin.de>:

In case recommendations of removal need seconds, I second this one.

--
»Q« It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you
mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers.
It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and
likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News

In article <3fb3011b$0$31346$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreen ews.net>,
Boomer__Baby_@mailinator.com says...
forthed.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:14:14 GMT, Onno posted to alt.comp.freeware:

Seconded.

--
My girlfriend said "Its me or that computer"
God - I'm gonna miss her

»Q« wrote:

I don't see a need for seconds. IMO your *vote* will be the
recommendation for removal (or recommendation for acceptance). All we're
doing now is creating a list.

If anyone thinks a programs is potentially controversial post the name
here - you don't have to be for or against it - just list the *feature*
you think might make it unacceptable to some.

Comments?

the list so far:

40tude Dialog (time limited)
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL...TERNET.htm#106

KaZaA Lite (Warez ?)
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL...ERNET.htm#K104

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:22:27 -0500, Susan Bugher
<whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote:

Dialog will be un time limited freeware as soon as the last few bugs
are removed. IMO starting a new thread about this one particular
program again would be a waste of everyone/s time and bandwidth.

It is clearly stated on the site why the betas are time limited. I
suggest that the words "time limited beta" be added to the
nomination and people make up their own mind what to do.

Regards, John.

Susan Bugher <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in
<news:vr2f4adpg80kd9@corp.supernews.com>:

Trillian
nagware

(Note that I mean the recurrent pop-up window nag, not the opening and
closing splash screens.)

--
»Q«

In alt.comp.freeware, on 15 Nov 2003, »Q« announced:

I can't remember whether this sort of post was supposed to be in
this thread, but as someone who uses trillian all the time (0.74
patch F), what recurrent pop-up window nag? I have never seen
any such thing so I am just wondering which version has it.

Regards

OgO
--
My Freeware: http://qjc.cjb.net/freeware.html
ICQ: 12889482 - AIM/Yahoo: quentisl - MSN: quentisl@mail.com
I left my Glasses in my email - you better take them out!

OgO <quentisl@qjc.cjbGlasses.net> wrote in
<news:Xns9434DC95393B9ogo1mynxwowaustcom@211.29.13 3.50>:

0.74 (patch D). I'll upgrade to patch F and see if it still pops up.

--
»Q« Ignore any lines above this one.

»Q« wrote:

I'll add notes to the Nominations page to show which programs are on the
acceptable vs. not unacceptable lists. I'll add Trillian - if the
nagware issue is resolved I'll remove it. I think that's the easiest way
for everyone to track which programs will be on the voting lists.

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html

"Susan Bugher" <whoisebugher@kvi.net> wrote in message
news:vr2f4adpg80kd9@corp.supernews.com...
I don't believe this has been formally brought up yet, and if it has, I
apologize.

I have seen some PC Magazine utilities nominated here. I love those utils,
and have been using them since way back in the 80s during the good old days
of DOS.
As most folks probably know by now, the PC Mag utilities were once free, but
now they are no longer available for free. One must subscribe on the PC Mag
website in order to get not only the new utils, but even the old ones.

Some of the old ones are still available around the web. The problem with
this is that PC Mag's licenses for their utils specifically says that they
are not to be distributed. Here is the relevant boilerplate from their
license:

Ziff-Davis grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use
the source code distributed with PC Magazine utilities for educational,
non-commercial purposes only. Under no circumstances may you distribute
any unaltered or altered version of the Software through any means,
including, without limitation, personal bulletin boards, ftp sites,
retained.
CompuServe, the Web, floppy disk or other storage device, or under any
name, including without limitation, your name, Ziff-Davis' name or any
third party's name, nor may you distribute or market programs that
contain altered or unaltered portions of the Software's source code.


From this it seems pretty clear that even the older free versions of PC Mag
utils cannot be distributed except directly from PC Mag itself. And for
that, you need to pay.

So, I would think that all PC Mag utils are no longer freeware and should be
removed from the Pricelessware list and from all nominations.

I hate to be a fly in the ointment here, but as an old retired shyster, I am
concerned about the legal ramifications to the Pricelessware list if the PC
Mag utils are retained.

"Nil" <nil@zilch.net> wrote in news:Z2Ttb.3397$Ue4.1402@fed1read01:


I doubt there could be legal ramifications for PW as only "links to" are
provided and not downloads of the physical files (hence no distribution
by PW). Your point though is certainly valid and is why I do not archive
PC Mag apps. on Freeware4u.com
--
burnr
http://freeware4u.com Freeware
http://shelbina-info.com Home-Community site
http://netsharkdownloads.com Shareware

"Nil" <nil@zilch.net> wrote in
<news:Z2Ttb.3397$Ue4.1402@fed1read01>:

All those programs were removed from the 2003 PL, for that reason.
They are not being put on the 2004 ballot, unless I missed something
posted since <news:vqg641gni5hj57@corp.supernews.com>.

--
»Q« Always remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.