The Great $Pricelessware $Racket
in [Freeware]
|
From: Jeffrey Bloss on 4 Oct 2009 11:56 On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:36:27 +0100, hummingbird wrote: > On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 11:27:14 -0400, Jeffrey Bloss wrote : >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:15:37 +0100, hummingbird wrote: >> >>> The person who hosts the PL ISO downloads (�Q�) should be in >>> possession of ALL permissions to distribute any freeware program. >>> In some cases this is included in the licence, others require >>> explicit approval from the authors, who may impose conditions. >>> �Q� does not have these permissions and is therefore hosting the >>> ISOs unlawfully. It's as simple as that. >> >> To add, it is ethically incumbent on the Pricelessware goons to make >> those permissions available for public viewing. Isn't freeware for the >> public use (with limitations as imposed by each author)? >> >> There is only one reason why the goons have not and *will* not perform >> this mandatory action. >> >> *They don't have the permissions* > > Well, don't blame me. > > Where were you at 11:38am last Thursday morning? I think we should be > told. At work as I always am on Thursday from 9-6 EST. > At that exact moment I was pressing the mute button on my televison. I > have witnesses and irrefutable evidence to suport this. So I'm > innocent, ok? OK. -- _?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. (@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]-- grok! Devoted Microsoft User
From: Me.Here on 4 Oct 2009 11:58 Jeffrey Bloss wrote thus: > If you took the collective time, resources, off ACF emails, endless > voting, etc and if they applied as little as 10% of this rather > humongous effort to the posting of author's permissions for public > viewing, the goons could debunk this so-called "lie" rather quickly. > > What do we learn from that? They don't have the permissions. > > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:50:14 +0100, hummingbird wrote: > >> Thanks, that's an excellent portrayal of what Pricelessware is all >> about neatly captured in one post. Doubtless the PWH people will >> deny everything and create their usual diversions to avoid dealing >> with the serious issues on hand <sigh>. >> >> 'whistleblower' wrote thus: >> >>> --The Great $Pricelessware $Racket-- // snipped for brevity // You continue to top post like a spammer. Back in the bozo bin you go. You've been added to the TB3 filter. -- MH
From: Nicodemus on 4 Oct 2009 15:58 Welcome back MH. Subject: The Great $Pricelessware $Racket Date: 4 October 2009 From: Me.Here <me.here(a)home.on.the.usenet> > > Jeffrey Bloss wrote thus: > >> If you took the collective time, resources, off ACF emails, endless >> voting, etc and if they applied as little as 10% of this rather >> humongous effort to the posting of author's permissions for public >> viewing, the goons could debunk this so-called "lie" rather quickly. >> >> What do we learn from that? They don't have the permissions. >> >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:50:14 +0100, hummingbird wrote: >> >>> Thanks, that's an excellent portrayal of what Pricelessware is all >>> about neatly captured in one post. Doubtless the PWH people will >>> deny everything and create their usual diversions to avoid dealing >>> with the serious issues on hand <sigh>. >>> >>> 'whistleblower' wrote thus: >>> >>> The Great $Pricelessware $Racket >>> > > // snipped for brevity // > > You continue to top post like a spammer. > > Back in the bozo bin you go. You've been added to the TB3 filter. > > -- > MH > >
From: Gary R. Schmidt on 5 Oct 2009 07:10 Jeffrey Bloss wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:21:09 +1000, Gary R. Schmidt wrote: > >> When the previous PWH CD was compiled, > > That's history, licenses change, authors change their interpretations, > this is a yesterday argument and a dodge. > >> the developers of the various >> items were contacted to determine whether the products could be >> redistributed, I assume they all assented. > > You assume, why? It would be much easier and have a much higher chance > of being correct if you assumed that each and every author has *not* > given his written permission. Funnily enough, I chose to use the term "assume" because I was fully aware that they all *did* give their assent. I contacted a few sideways just to be sure. >> I would be surprised if the same effort was not made this year. >> >> Cheers, >> Gary B-) > > I'm not surprised at this naive statement. Ah, well, you see, I *know* the same effort is being undertaken - but then, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. Cheers, Gary B-) (And back in the filter goes another luser.)
From: Jeffrey Bloss on 5 Oct 2009 12:05
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:38:10 +0100, hummingbird wrote: > 'Jeffrey Bloss' wrote thus: > >>If you took the collective time, resources, off ACF emails, endless >>voting, etc and if they applied as little as 10% of this rather >>humongous effort to the posting of author's permissions for public >>viewing, the goons could debunk this so-called "lie" rather quickly. >> >>What do we learn from that? They don't have the permissions. > > hole in one :-) And that folks is the nail in their Pricelessware scam/coffin. -- _?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. (@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]-- grok! Devoted Microsoft User |