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

gforestieri9_at_yahoo.com (Greg Forestieri) wrote in message news:<6a8cdd95.0403030834.1b995b9e_at_posting.google.com>...
> 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

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry/oraclech.htm

Look at the cdo.marketplace charter again. It includes but is not limited to software available for sale. So it clearly is the place for software that costs money, and may or may not be the place for free software.

Now look at the cdo.server charter. "Discussions of software and applications designed to aid in database administration should be carried in this group."

Now look at the cdo.misc charter. This whole question revolves upon whether something free is considered commercial. So I'd agree with Ed and > > >>> if I've got the attributions straight.

Now, spam doesn't have to be commercial. In fact, I'd love to e-strangle the jerk sending out all those psychotic christian email messages (among others) with my cox.net addresses forged in the headers. And I certainly have an emotional reaction about newsgroups getting spammed, since I have seen them get destroyed (misc.jobs.misc in particular still rankles after all these years), so I can appreciate the necessity of vigilance.

But I must say, I think it is appropriate to post about useful and appropo free software in cdo.server or .misc. If there is evidence that it is a come-on for a commercial or posted by someone who has ulterior motives, that should be posted too.

I realize this may be a minority opinion here, and don't really have a problem with self-appointed cdo spam police. It's just my opinion, which I haven't changed in a long time. In fact, I think free software should be encouraged, and vetted through the usenet publishing process. Which process can be nasty, although it shouldn't be.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Out of the Ivory tower: http://www.avirubin.com/judge.html