🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, wnp@killer (Wolf Paul) writes:

| >If it works out, then great for Brad and all his subscribers.  But
| >it's too bad he doesn't feel that doing something for the net just for
| >that reason is good enough.
|
|So maybe he has to make a living somehow? The gratitude of the net just
|doesn't put bread on the table, or pay the phone bill, etc.

As I recently answered in private mail, I have been talking about what
I originally said in a referenced article.  That is, Brad has a right
to do anything he likes and he is entitled to charge for the service
he is providing, especially that which he must pay for himself, i.e.,
the news articles he will transmit.  What I originally mentioned was
the software for article filtering he will only give to ClariNet users
and people who licence it from him, presumably for a price.  I never
implied he should not be allowed to do this, merely that so many
others have contributed to the net for no monetary gain, while Brad
feels it necessary to make money off it.  Not wrong, just
untraditional.  Nobody is forcing anyone to be traditional; it is just
sad that it is happening.

|And why is it o.k. for UUNET to charge for its services without being 
|flamed as being contrary to the "spirit of the net", while Clarinet
|is being bashed for the same thing?

Bashing?  I wasn't bashing, at least I never meant to be.  I think the
prime difference between UUNET and ClariNet is that UUNET is
non-profit.  I don't think that ClariNet is.  If I have misread yet
another article, I apologize.  Once again, Brad is entitled to make a
profit.  He will if enough people on the net think that his service is
worth it.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science
                            +----------------------------------------+
ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu     | Charisma doesn't have jelly in the     |
UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel   | middle.  -- Jim Ignatowski             |