🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <17240001@hpavla.lf.hp.com>, griffith@hpavla.lf.hp.com (Jeff Griffith) writes:
>I've always thought that USENET was strictly non-commercial. From this
>premise, Shareware isn't allowed as it is an effort to produce income 
>from the distribution of software. So, given this basis, any time I've seen
>Shareware posted, I've ignored any requests for money.

That's a fairly large, all-encompassing statement: "UseNet is strictly
non-commercial".  I think it may be true in the sense that nobody is
supposed to used the net as a primary means conducting a business,
but there are _lots_ of widely accepted uses of UseNet which might, in
the very strictest sense, be considered to be commerce.  For instance, I
belong to a band, and I frequently use the net to advertise our concerts;
I trust that Jeff wouldn't use this as an excuse to wander in to one of
them without buying a ticket.  I have bought and sold merchandise through
the net -- there are newsgroups that exist for this specific purpose and
no other -- and again, I sincerely hope that when I advertise an item
for sale, Jeff won't say to himself, "well, since he advertised it on
the net, I'm perfectly justified in helping myself to it and not giving
him any money."  If, as I fear, the phrase "I've ignored any requests for
money" implies "but I went ahead and used the software anyway," then Jeff
apparently _does_ feel so justified when the item in question is software.

Now, it's perfectly possible that the charter of the specific newsgroup
Danny posted in may forbid any sort of mention of filthy lucre.  I'm a
bit unsure of my ground here, because I don't have the charter of the
group right at my fingertips, but I have the vague impression (a) that
it was a moderated group, so this was basically the moderator's call, and
(b) that there have been previous packages on the same group with similar
requests for voluntary donations.  (I'm sure someone will correct me if
I'm wrong.  If there's one thing that's universally true about UseNet,
it's that there's always someone to correct you if you're wrong, and
sometimes even if you're not.)

I persist in thinking that what's gotten everybody's hackles up so badly
about this particular posting is not the fairly gentle hint that a few
bucks would be welcome, but the statement that "you can use this for a
week for free", which carried the (surely unintentional) implication that
on day number eight a team of lawyers would be knocking on your door.
I think that Danny just meant to suggest that the request for a donation
was deferred for a week after you started using the package; in other
words, he specified the time period after which he wanted you to start
feeling guilty for not sending him money.  (I realize I'm opening myself
up for more snotty comments about Jewish stereotypes here, but it can't
be helped.)  This is a bit unusual, true, but it strikes me as a looser
arrangement than the usual wording, which wants you to start feeling
guilty immediately.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   -__ __ /_   Jon Berger              "If you push something hard enough,
  //_// //_/   jonb@ingres.com          it will fall over."
_/ ---------                              - Fudd's First Law of Opposition