🚀 go-pugleaf

> The owner of the site didn't have the
> option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the
> issue.  Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple.

OK, that's fine. I wasn't addressing the case of Brad's offering (which,
as Jef notes, you are under no obligation to pay twice for). I was
responding to what I perceived as an overall attack on the concept
of shareware in general, whether it be distributed on Usenet or not;
guiltware or not; etc...

> Ultimately the value of a piece of software is the number of
> dollars someone is willing to pay for it.

Succinct and to the point.

> If shareware authors
> aren't receiving money for their programs it only means one
> thing.  The software isn't worth a dime.  And I'd prefer they
> didn't cost me money by posting it and begging for money.

As a shareware author who *is* recieving money for his programs,
I'm at a loss to understand the point you're making here. It's too
early to reach a verdict on Brad's program. Maybe he'll be able
to retire on the contributions...
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'