🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jim Tavendale" <jim@horndon.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aiplfts2blnq9bjveueo7hombvn6q5uhqg@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:27:06 +0100, Barnacle Bill
> <bill@bracewel.demon.co.uk> broadcast:
>
> >In article <k0mgft435jll2ln2sjjd7enu0mhiedj28g@4ax.com>, Jim Tavendale
> ><jim@horndon.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>On Mon, 7 May 2001 23:47:43 +0100, Barnacle Bill
> >><bill@bracewel.demon.co.uk> broadcast:
> >>
> >>>Hi - sorry I have a feeling that i'm missing something somewhere but it
> >>>appears that winzip , which is supplied as an integral part of me is
> >>>charegeable software.   Whats the situation here?
> >>>
> >>>tia
> >>Look at:-
> >>       http://www.winzip.com/
> >>and all will be revealed!
> >
> >Sorry Jim I must be particularly  dense but I looked at winzip.com as
> >you suggested and its still as clear as mud to me (:-(
> >
> >The FAQs didn't appear to help
> >
> I thought that one look at the site's flavour would show that:-
> 1)Nico Mak Computing, Inc. own the "WinZip" copyright.

actually they're called WinZip Computing Inc now...

> 2)They are not a Microsoft subsidiary.

true... is there something that precludes Microsoft from distributing
software that is produced by a company which is not a subsidiary?...
Hilgraeve, McAfee and Symantec spring to mind as companies who have had
their software bundled into microsoft stuff, the stuff that was included
wasn't "chargable" shareware, but they all offered pay-for upgrades to the
full versions of their software or for updates...

> Apologies for being obtuse.

indeed

michael