Re: SPAM DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally

Ed Avis <ed_at_membled.com> wrote in message news:<l1llmndmay.fsf_at_budvar.future-i.net>...
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >>>The point where I draw the line, others may draw it
> >>>elsewhere, is when there is a for-profit organization with a business
> >>>license waiting in the wings.
> >>
> >>I think this is right, and I would class articles about software
> >>offering a 'free evaluation version' or limited-use licence as spam.
> >>But I don't think that is the case here.
> >
> >Why not? The name of the product is clearly stated in the "subject"
> >above which you have dutifully reposted. How does that not qualify as
> >product promotion?
>
> I thought we were talking about your statement about a for-profit
> organization and business licences, which is quoted above. As far as
> I can tell there is no such setup for PEAR DB. There are no business
> licences being sold, there is no company waiting in the wings to
> force people to pay money. It is free software and free of charge.

Cost is irrelevant. Is SPAM for a $10 database product less SPAMmy than one that costs $10000? No. That it is "free" (and here I recall the old saw about there being no free lunches) is irrelevant. This product "competes" with for-charge products. You may think open-source is a "good" thing, I wouldn't disagree that it has an important place in the world, but trumpeting open-source code differs only from trumpeting for-cost code in only one very small way. It is an ad. It is unsolicited. And it is SPAM.

The whole idea behind having more than one news subgroup is so that we don't have to sift through "material" we don't want to. Some understand this concept. Others...

Greg Received on Wed Mar 03 2004 - 10:34:49 CST