I just saw an entry for PowerDesk in> http://www.priceles­swarehome.org/2006/P­L2006FILEUTILITIES.p­hp#FileM> anager. The entry includes the following line: "(Liteware)> (Registerware) (Nagware) (free)">

You can probably guess what's coming:>

1) I've read in several messages that liteware, registerware, and> nagware are not considered freeware in this group.

2) There is no listing in pricelesswarehome for FreeCommander> (http://www.freecom­mander.com/index_en.­htm) which is not liteware,> registerware, or nagware, but there --is-- a listing for> PowerDesk.>

That doesn't seem to be consistent with the threads that I'm> reading in this newsgroup.

I just saw an entry for PowerDesk in > http://www.priceles­swarehome.org/2006/P­L2006FILEUTILITIES.p­hp#FileManager. > The entry includes the following line: "(Liteware) (Registerware) > (Nagware) (free)">

You can probably guess what's coming:>

1) I've read in several messages that liteware, registerware, and > nagware are not considered freeware in this group.

2) There is no listing in pricelesswarehome for FreeCommander > (http://www.freecom­mander.com/index_en.­htm) which is not liteware, > registerware, or nagware, but there --is-- a listing for PowerDesk.

That doesn't seem to be consistent with the threads that I'm reading in > this newsgroup.

Acceptable Ware types for the 2006 Pricelessware List and "ware> ballots" are discussed on this web page:> http://www.priceles­swarehome.org/2006/2­006PL-Procedures.php­

Thanks. That page includes removal procedures. ­>

AFAICT, PowerDesk should be removed.>

PowerDesk has been nagware for a long time. AFAICT, nagware still> isn't acceptable for the PL; that page says nagware is ineligible.> Unless the PL policy WRT nagware changed before the vote and the> procedures page wasn't updated to reflect the change, it looks like> PowerDesk wasn't eligible for nomination. (I've tried searching> Google Groups for a policy change, but I can't find one -- if there> was one, somebody please post a pointer to it.)>

Susan, when you posted a list of programs eligible for> nomination[1], PowerDesk was on it. Serveral people nominated or> seconded it in that thread, and I guess the process went forward> without anyone double-checking its eligibility.>

[1] <http://groups.goog­le.com/group/alt.com­p.freeware/msg/95dd6­03505177572>

PowerDesk (PW06 PW05 PW04 PW03 PW02 PW01) has been> *labeled* as Nagware since 2003 but it's never been on a> Pricelessware ware ballot. ­

AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic (PW06 PW05 PW04 PW03) also seems> to have been flying below our radar. I recently *labeled* it> Nagware based on posts to ACF - see these Jan. 2006 threads:> "AntiVir Personal Edition 7.0 Final" and "AntivVir updates - are> they still full size each time?" AFAICT from those threads this> app has been Nagware for some time. . .>

http://www.priceles­swarehome.org/2006/P­L2006SECURITY.php#00­55-PW

ISTM we need to determine if there's a consensus for removal of> these programs - IOW discussion followed by a PL Ware ballot.

I don't have a test machine I'm willing to install AV software on,> so I can't check this one, but it appears very clear from those> threads that AntiVir is nagware by the a.c.f definition. There's a> popup encouraging purchase every time it updates its virus defs, and> the nagware definition is:>

Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the> software. You must press a button to get past the nag screen.>

So unless the popup goes away without user interaction, AntiVir is> nagware by our definition.>

For removal of AntiVir, I don't think we need a new concensus.> Here's what the procedures page has to say about removal:>

Programs are removed from the Pricelessware List if they do not> meet the eligibility requirements. If it is learned that the> program's ware type is ineligible or it becomes ineligible the> program is removed from the Pricelessware List.>

So I think it should just come off the list immediately. Then if> anyone wants to make a case that nagware should be allowed on the PL> (or that AntiVir isn't really nagware or that AntiVir should get a> special exemption from the rules), the group could consider putting> it back on the PL.

I just installed PowerDesk v. 6.0.1.3, and it doesn't appear to fit> the current a.c.f definition of nagware. There's no popup, and the> definition requires one. PowerDesk instead nags with an> always-visible bar along the bottom of its window, "Click here for> more about: PowerDesk Pro 6". The color of the bar changes each> time the program is used, and there's a new blurb such as "View over> 150 file formats".>

I certainly consider it nagware, but since it doesn't match the> group's definition, the one which was in place for the PL2006> process, I'll withdraw my suggestion that it should be removed.

I don't have a test machine I'm willing to install AV software on,> so I can't check this one, but it appears very clear from those> threads that AntiVir is nagware by the a.c.f definition. There's a> popup encouraging purchase every time it updates its virus defs, and> the nagware definition is:>

Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the> software. You must press a button to get past the nag screen.>

So unless the popup goes away without user interaction, AntiVir is> nagware by our definition.>

For removal of AntiVir, I don't think we need a new concensus.> Here's what the procedures page has to say about removal:>

Programs are removed from the Pricelessware List if they do not> meet the eligibility requirements. If it is learned that the> program's ware type is ineligible or it becomes ineligible the> program is removed from the Pricelessware List.

So I think it should just come off the list immediately. Then if> anyone wants to make a case that nagware should be allowed on the PL> (or that AntiVir isn't really nagware or that AntiVir should get a> special exemption from the rules), the group could consider putting> it back on the PL.

In the past it was an *intermittent* nag. Shades of Trillian. . . ;) > This post should get you to the pertinent part of a long thread:>

I see a post from Kerodo that says the behavior of AntiVir has changed > recently. IMO it would be helpful to have a better handle on the > behavior of both these apps. IOW - let's let this thread ride for a day > or two to give people a chance to comment - then make a decision on the > next step.>

Susan>

Susan, I have to agree with your comment above that it seems to be an> 'intermittent' nag of sorts. I do recall seeing this same behavior back> in version 6 a year ago or so also, so it's nothing new. Just installed> it once more tonight, and no nags, so let's see if anyone else can> confirm and/or add anything more to the conversation...

Susan Bugher <sebugher@yahoo.com­> wrote in> <news:47qp3qFduc5lU­1@individual.net>:>

I certainly consider it nagware, but since it doesn't match the> group's definition, the one which was in place for the PL2006> process, I'll withdraw my suggestion that it should be removed.

I don't have a test machine I'm willing to install AV software on,> so I can't check this one, but it appears very clear from those> threads that AntiVir is nagware by the a.c.f definition. There's a> popup encouraging purchase every time it updates its virus defs, and> the nagware definition is:

Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the> software. You must press a button to get past the nag screen.>

So unless the popup goes away without user interaction, AntiVir is> nagware by our definition.

For removal of AntiVir, I don't think we need a new concensus.> Here's what the procedures page has to say about removal:>

Programs are removed from the Pricelessware List if they do not> meet the eligibility requirements. If it is learned that the> program's ware type is ineligible or it becomes ineligible the> program is removed from the Pricelessware List.>

So I think it should just come off the list immediately. Then if> anyone wants to make a case that nagware should be allowed on the PL> (or that AntiVir isn't really nagware or that AntiVir should get a> special exemption from the rules), the group could consider putting> it back on the PL.

You are confusing discussing the definition of a ware type and> discussing (a) particular program(s). This distinction was clearly> implied in the list I quoted. That's most likely why you agreed that "it> wasn't inappropriate or unethical to do so imho."

And again, like so many others, you are confusing the act of actually> using a particular program with recommending it in this group. The two> are not the same.

An obvious fact that applies to life in general. Still, this doesn't> mean, for instance, that the world should give up on the democratic> process just because everybody doesn't agree.

Aaron, not including nagware in the list of acceptable type of software > was important enough to Nonags.com that they actually named their > website in a fashion indicating how they felt about it.

Does it matter? Users who vote for it certainly know what it does, do you > think simply labelling it nagware will change anything in the ballot?

If you ask me the number of votes casted for Antivir speaks for itself > without the need for special exemptions and stuff. Voters certainly

IMHO the fact they are willing to vote for it, speaks volumes more than > just some abstract vote on acceptable ware types.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:24:00 -0800, John Corliss> <jcorliss@fake.inva­lid> wrote:> <snip>>>Also note that the Pricelessware list and this group are two distinct >>entities. That the list is a reflection on this group however, is a >>point that needs to be considered when the issue of including nagware on >>it is decided.>

Totally agree.>

What we as a group tolerate for discussion, should not be the criteria> for what we as a group recommend as priceless.

"Anonymous" <noemail@noisp.com>­ wrote in message > news:Z7GdnaeXmsSZUI­vZRVn-tA@comcast.com­...

Generally, we all agree that any talk of> commercial software or shareware is out. Once you get into things like> donationware, nagware, crippleware, time-out ware, registerware,> careware, etc things start to get kinda fuzzy. I consider these all> sub-genres of freeware. For me, free=no $. Beyond that I generally> make my own call about how much annoyance I will tolerate in a piece> of free software.

I'm sure you'll find most people here -- more or less -- here fall> into that category.

Presumably nobody cares. Everyone who voted on the software, knew> exactly what it did. Adding a label changes nothing.

This whole obsession with ware types is getting ridiculous,

we don't like nagware once it becomes too annoying not merely> because it fits the definition of>

'has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the software.> You must press a button to get past the nag screen.'.

So fundmentally, whether someone calls something nagware or not,> is probably based on whether he finds it annoying enough, or> better yet he doesn't care as long as it is good enough to use.

That's just like the whole Liteware/cripplewar­e distinction. Again> people don't like it when too many features are removed that's the> whole thing to it! Trying to make youself feel better by calling> one liteware, one crippleware is just weird. Your crippleware is> my lightware!

Remember the whole idea of ware types is meant to be used as a> shorthand to the types of things we generally find acceptable or a> way to describe something. It is not a straight jacket to make all> our decisions.

Beyond certain things that everyone agrees like> warez,spyware,adwar­e,sharewarez, I'm afraid trying to stick to the> 'rules' closely when most of the definitions are loosely defined> anyway is not a good idea.

If you ask me the number of votes casted for Antivir speaks for> itself without the need for special exemptions and stuff. Voters> certainly can't be blind to the fact that Antivir produces nags!

My vote: Remove.

Perhaps a new thread for each???

Vegard Krog Petersen wrote:>> on 16.03.2006 18:59 Susan Bugher wrote:>

Thank you for expressing your opinion.>

They might be one post threads - everyone seems to have gone into lurk >mode. I may just flip a coin and have done with it. ;)>

Susan

Vegard Krog Petersen wrote:>

They might be one post threads - everyone seems to have gone into lurk > mode. I may just flip a coin and have done with it. ;)>

Susan

For what reason exactly? Beyond the fact of playing word definitional> games?

Usually peeps only complain when I stop lurking...<cough> I've used > neither of these so, can't comment specifically on the two apps in > question.

In general though, I think the only time that nagware should be omitted > entirely is if there are other proggies that fill the nagware's niche.

If you think Nagware is never okay on the Pl - or you think it's> not okay in the case of one or both of these apps please tell me> you think the apps should be removed.

If you think Nagware is always okay on the PL - or you think it's okay

I just saw an entry for PowerDesk in > http://www.priceles­swarehome.org/2006/P­L2006FILEUTILITIES.p­hp#FileManager. > The entry includes the following line: "(Liteware) (Registerware) > (Nagware) (free)">

You can probably guess what's coming:>

1) I've read in several messages that liteware, registerware, and > nagware are not considered freeware in this group.> 2) There is no listing in pricelesswarehome for FreeCommander > (http://www.freecom­mander.com/index_en.­htm) which is not liteware, > registerware, or nagware, but there --is-- a listing for PowerDesk.>

That doesn't seem to be consistent with the threads that I'm reading in > this newsgroup.>

(In other words: It looks like there is a dent in the side of the car. > The dent might not be a dent---it might be a necessary molding in the > body of the vehicle to accomodate some sort of attachment to the engine > that sits inside the body. Is that dent supposed to be there or is it an > issue that needs attention?)>

PS: I'm not advocating FreeCommander and I don't own or use the > software, I just needed a viable example to contrast with PowerDesk.>

Well, it used to be free... it looks like register-ware now.>

I bought PowerDesk Pro 5.0 years ago and still use it more than any > other program ;)

The most important factor is the usability to problem ratio.> Or the positive sides to negative sides ratio.

Does Nonags have a definition for Nagware?>

they say:>

http://www.nonags.c­om/nonags/antivirus.­html>

AntiVir Personal Edition Ver 6.13.00.xx for Win9x/ME (3.9 mb)> AntiVir Personal Edition Ver 6.13.00.xx for NT4/Win2k/XP (3.9 mb)>

"the private and individual use of AntiVir Personal Edition at home is > completely free of charge! No annoying ads, nags or popups. No special > conditions or restrictions.">

we say:>