| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: SPAM DB 1.6.0 has been released - now OT if not originally
Joel Garry wrote:
> 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
After reading that page, I would be a little more inclied toward your and Ed
A.'s view with conditions.
using the starter of this thread as a test case, would it's announcement then
fit in the .tools area? There is some overlap, but .server says:
"Tools and applications designed to aid in database administration."
while the .tools charter has:
:...tools available from Oracle Corporation, or designed to work with Oracle
applications. Developers of end-user applications will find this newsgroup
most useful."
where a PHP tool would certainly be one for developing end-user applications.
Further the tail end of the .tools charter says:
"If the comp.databases.oracle.server newsgroup is created in this
reorganization, then discussions of tools and applications designed for use by
database administrators should be carried on in the .server newsgroup, and not
the .tools group."
implying that postings to .server should not included front end or application
tools.
>
> 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
We need to hear more informed opinions on both sides. Glad to hear yours Joel.
-- Ed Prochak running http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/ netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html -- "Two roads diverged in a wood and I I took the one less travelled by and that has made all the difference." robert frostReceived on Thu Mar 04 2004 - 00:00:35 CST
 |
 |