Subject: Mark shareware/freeware/etc status to file lists

20. *****
 Q: Why don't you mark shareware/freeware/etc status to Garbo's file
lists?

 A: This is one of the suggestions on improving our FTP site that
seems to recur. Feedback and ideas from users are always welcome.
Please do not be put off by the fact that in this case the response
has to be negative.
   Unfortunately, what is said below for this particular suggestion
goes for many other welcome ideas as well. They often would cause
too much additional workload stretched as we are at maintaining our
FTP archives. Thus although the comments below will concern marking
the shareware / freeware status, the comments are partly applicable
to many other kind suggestions we get from our gentle users. But
please do not prevent this from making suggestions and giving
feedback.
  The suggestion to mark the shareware / freeware status to the
files at archive sites is not realistic, not at least on Garbo FTP
archives. Archive management takes a lot of effort even the way it
is now. There is no way we can afford the effort to categorize even
all the new incoming material, let alone what we already have. Try
to categorize, say, a hundred packages you do not know in advance. I
am sure you'll soon see how daunting the task is. And, if you feel
that I exaggerate the amount of extra effort, offers of volunteer
work are welcome. (The same answer is applicable for the kind
suggestions about putting file sizes into our file indexes).
   There are offshoots of the question of the shareware / freeware
on the archives. First, some users have been deploring the fact
that they have to download the material before they can see whether
it is free or not. Well, this is a fact of life, and I can only say
that downloaders just have to adjust to this state of affairs. As a
moderator of an FTP site, I am somewhat unhappy to see that users
are occasionally somewhat caustic when commenting on the work they
feel they have wasted. Here, I must suggest a reflection of the
free nature of the FTP site services.
   A second offshoot of this discussion is the question whether the
FTP sites should carry shareware material at all, because shareware
is supposed to be against the non-commercial nature of the net. I
won't enter into quibbling about manna from heaven vs facilities are
always paid by someone. There has been ample debate on the
principle during the existence of the news in many newsgroups. But
FTP sites (and BBSes) carry shareware (and freeware) material.
That's the way it is, and that's the way it'll probably stay. Who
would sort out the different kind of programs, anyway, in actual
practice. Besides what about the programs that are free for
individuals but payment is required for corporate and similar usage?
   A third offshoot is the concept of shareware itself, and whether
one is obliged to pay for it. This subject is outside the current
problem, and besides it has been discussed ad nauseum in many Usenet
newsgroups. I don't want to enter into that. My official position as
a moderator is clear: "Duly observe the shareware rules".
   There is, however, one group of programs, relevant to this
discussion, which I prefer not to have on Garbo archives, that is
the demo versions of fully commercial programs. Since the Usenet
principle _and_ practice is an unambiguous no with respect to
outright commercial programs. (It would be illegal to distribute
them through the net for obvious reasons). Therefore I feel that
there is no reason why we should be carrying part of the marketing
costs of fully commercial producers of programs by accommodating
their demo versions, perhaps with a rare exception of demos of
exceptional interest or usefulness. I am occasionally accosted by
producers of commercial products. My usual response has been a no
for the reasons given here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------