Forum unknown
· Amiga at Work
#Is UEdit dying???
83 messages in this thread
The following is an excerpt from the 6/11/87 UEdit mailing:
"I am at the end of my rope, as of the end of this month. I had a small
reserve which, added to what came in, enabled UEdit to last this long in
shareware.
"Unless a miracle happens, I must assume that I will have to give notice on
my apartment at the end of this month.
"I would tough it out… if I could get enough support to get by on, in the
belief that eventually UEdit would pay for itself. At the best rate so
far, it would take a lot of years. If many of you had not expressed your
desire to help UEdit, I would have quit long ago…
"… I feel like Amiga owners care less about honestly paying for shareware
than PC users… I feel like the reason is that Amiga owners are too
game-oriented. Statistics indicate that 97% who use UEdit don't pay for
it.
"I want to stay in Amiga software and to PROVE, by God, that it CAN be done
on the Amiga and that UEdit CAN become a shareware success story, against
odds that nobody yet has had to contend with. Shareware on the Amiga CAN
work, if you will help me to MAKE it work." — Rick Stiles
Come on folks, let's pitch in. Let's not prove that we are "too game
oriented" to support shareware, or that we're not as trustworthy as PC
owners. If you are using a copy of UEdit and like it, send in your payment
and register with Rick Stiles. If J0RGEN Thomsen's PRDRGN has gotten you
out of a bind, send him some money. Look through your Startup-Sequence and
C: directories… if you're using BlitzFonts or ConMan or any one of a
dozen other worthy shareware programs, SUPPORT THEM. You'll give up a few
bucks by supporting shareware… but if we don't, we'll be all the poorer
for quality software.
Rick
NOTE: This is a personal statement, and does not necessarily reflect the
opinions of CompuServe, the AmigaForum, or the other sysops.
It does reflect my opinion. Come on guys, Amiga has some excellent freely
distributable software. Don't blow the future of this software or chase
away the folks who write it. If you are using shareware and find it meets
your needs — send in your money today!
To all you downloaders,
Don't be a freeloader! I am proud to say that I have paid for every
shareware program that I have downloaded and use even once a month. Not
only that, I got a great surprise when I sent in my shareware $$ and got a
new disk in the mail that was a disk full of PD software!
Some people are really putting alot of effort out for you and your
computer, lets continue to support good software.
To all you downloaders,
Don't be a freeloader! I am proud to say that I have paid for every
shareware program that I have downloaded and use even once a month. Not
only that, I got a great surprise when I sent in my shareware $$ and got a
new disk in the mail that was a disk full of PD software!
Some people are really putting alot of effort out for you and your
computer, lets continue to support good software.
It does reflect my opinion. Come on guys, Amiga has some excellent freely
distributable software. Don't blow the future of this software or chase
away the folks who write it. If you are using shareware and find it meets
your needs — send in your money today!
That certainly reflects my opinion. I simcerely doubt that any shareware
authors will ever become millionaires, but it would sure be nice to see
them rewarded for their efforts to the point where they at least think it's
worth doing again.
Using shareware? Send that money in. It's a bargain compared to what you
would pay for a commercial equivalent!
That certainly reflects my opinion. I simcerely doubt that any shareware
authors will ever become millionaires, but it would sure be nice to see
them rewarded for their efforts to the point where they at least think it's
worth doing again.
Using shareware? Send that money in. It's a bargain compared to what you
would pay for a commercial equivalent!
Wrong! It DOES reflect my opinion!
NOT wrong! 8) Go back and read the statement in question; it is complete
and correct. I will point out that I said "not NECESSARILY the opinion…"
which does not imply you don't feel the same way. Gotcha.
NOT wrong! 8) Go back and read the statement in question; it is complete
and correct. I will point out that I said "not NECESSARILY the opinion…"
which does not imply you don't feel the same way. Gotcha.
I think most people expected the response for the rest of the SYSOPs that
Rick received. The Amiga is actually rather 'rich' in terms of shareware.
As Larry mentioned few authors could ever expect to become wealthy writing
shareware but I think that it 'adds insult to injury' to not receive a
recompense for the many hours of effort that it takes to produce the fine
offerings that we all benifit from as Amiga users.
If someone spends hours of work on a product that I don't want to buy, are
you saying I still owe him some "collective payment," just because they
were part of the wonderful Amiga shareware market? (Of course you weren't!
I'm just setting up a straw man, and knocking it down!)
John, If someone spends hours (even weeks) of work on a product that you
don't want then don't pay for it! Don't Download it! Or, if you need to
download it to evaluate it do so. BUT, if you find that it's of NO worth
to you and you indeed DON'T want it, then erase it from your disk! Never
look at it again! Plain and Simple isn't it?
John, If someone spends hours (even weeks) of work on a product that you
don't want then don't pay for it! Don't Download it! Or, if you need to
download it to evaluate it do so. BUT, if you find that it's of NO worth
to you and you indeed DON'T want it, then erase it from your disk! Never
look at it again! Plain and Simple isn't it?
If I had to pay for all the 'shareware' software that I have, I would have
to give up computing! That is the blessing of 'shareware.' You don't have
to pay for a program only to find out that it is not usable. Of course
that puts a moral responsible on us all to pay for that which we do use. I
am certainly not going to take a 'holier than thou' approach since this
discussion has reminded me that I have been remiss on sending in some
comtributions. I just hope that many others will respond too.
I have noticed that several people that have written games have stated that
they have not so much as received a thank you. I am not a game user so I
don't run any games other than Adventure (the original Willie Crother type)
and have that available for every machine that I own (interesting since it
is written in assembler for most (all) machines.
If I had to pay for all the 'shareware' software that I have, I would have
to give up computing! That is the blessing of 'shareware.' You don't have
to pay for a program only to find out that it is not usable. Of course
that puts a moral responsible on us all to pay for that which we do use. I
am certainly not going to take a 'holier than thou' approach since this
discussion has reminded me that I have been remiss on sending in some
comtributions. I just hope that many others will respond too.
I have noticed that several people that have written games have stated that
they have not so much as received a thank you. I am not a game user so I
don't run any games other than Adventure (the original Willie Crother type)
and have that available for every machine that I own (interesting since it
is written in assembler for most (all) machines.
If someone spends hours of work on a product that I don't want to buy, are
you saying I still owe him some "collective payment," just because they
were part of the wonderful Amiga shareware market? (Of course you weren't!
I'm just setting up a straw man, and knocking it down!)
I think most people expected the response for the rest of the SYSOPs that
Rick received. The Amiga is actually rather 'rich' in terms of shareware.
As Larry mentioned few authors could ever expect to become wealthy writing
shareware but I think that it 'adds insult to injury' to not receive a
recompense for the many hours of effort that it takes to produce the fine
offerings that we all benifit from as Amiga users.
Wrong! It DOES reflect my opinion!
Rick, my sentiments exactly – we should all contribute to shareware.
Marlene
Rick, my sentiments exactly – we should all contribute to shareware.
Marlene
Sorry to hear Rick is having troubles; he has done the shareware route very
well, with good support and enhancements/options available to those that
have sent in their contributions. I think his frustration is typical not
only of shareware authors, but small self-publishing types as well. Best
suggestion is either to start with enough money to last a year or so
without income, or to plan on working elsewhere until the cash-flow is
positive. And if you're publishing rather than doing shareware, plan on
*loosing* a lot of money the first year. There's a lot of consulting work
available around Route 128!
Sorry to hear Rick is having troubles; he has done the shareware route very
well, with good support and enhancements/options available to those that
have sent in their contributions. I think his frustration is typical not
only of shareware authors, but small self-publishing types as well. Best
suggestion is either to start with enough money to last a year or so
without income, or to plan on working elsewhere until the cash-flow is
positive. And if you're publishing rather than doing shareware, plan on
*loosing* a lot of money the first year. There's a lot of consulting work
available around Route 128!
Well…. I must admit: I haven't sent my payment for ConMan yet. And at
this point I don't even know where to send it, as I seem to have misplaced
the original distribution file.
How about if one of you SYSOPs compile a list of addresses for all the
regular shareware authors (for such programs as UEdit, ConMan, RRD, etc),
and either put it somewhere in the DL, or – better yet – put it in a
bulletin, with a reminder to all of us to pay our dues.
I think the reason why many of us haven't done so yet stems from laziness,
and not out of greed or being cheap. When you buy a commercial package
you're forced to pay for it up front, but for a shareware product you keep
saying 'Oh yes, I gotta write a check for this guy… I'll do it
tommorrow…' – Steve –
The ConMan address is in the little "advertisement" window which appears on
startup. You know, the one that say "Time to say goodnight, CON:…"
I've only payed for one or two shareware packages, and UEdit is one of
them. For me it's a combination of factors. The program has to be more
than a minimal hack, it has to be (for me) worth the price asked, and the
author has to have the right attitude. If your program is worth, IMHO, $10
and you ask $50, you won't get nuthin' from me; if your attitude is "you
must pay me for this or rot in h*ll, because I'm an honest struggling
author and you are a thief", forget it.
Rick produced a good product, he asked a fair price, and he struck me as a
reasonable man… so I sent him a check. Laziness probably delayed the
payment a few weeks, but it'd not stop it. I think if you're too stingy to
make the payment, laziness is a good excuse… but if you really intend to
pay up, you will get to it eventually, lazy or not.
I/we concur with you comments about Shareware in general and UEdit in
particular. I am using UEdit right now to compose my replies to the
messages. It is the finest editor I have had the pleasure of using on ANY
machine.
Thank you, Vic. And I know where you guys stand on UEdit and shareware,
because of comments made in the recent mailing. Thanks for the support.
Thank you, Vic. And I know where you guys stand on UEdit and shareware,
because of comments made in the recent mailing. Thanks for the support.
I/we concur with you comments about Shareware in general and UEdit in
particular. I am using UEdit right now to compose my replies to the
messages. It is the finest editor I have had the pleasure of using on ANY
machine.
The ConMan address is in the little "advertisement" window which appears on
startup. You know, the one that say "Time to say goodnight, CON:…"
I've only payed for one or two shareware packages, and UEdit is one of
them. For me it's a combination of factors. The program has to be more
than a minimal hack, it has to be (for me) worth the price asked, and the
author has to have the right attitude. If your program is worth, IMHO, $10
and you ask $50, you won't get nuthin' from me; if your attitude is "you
must pay me for this or rot in h*ll, because I'm an honest struggling
author and you are a thief", forget it.
Rick produced a good product, he asked a fair price, and he struck me as a
reasonable man… so I sent him a check. Laziness probably delayed the
payment a few weeks, but it'd not stop it. I think if you're too stingy to
make the payment, laziness is a good excuse… but if you really intend to
pay up, you will get to it eventually, lazy or not.
Well…. I must admit: I haven't sent my payment for ConMan yet. And at
this point I don't even know where to send it, as I seem to have misplaced
the original distribution file.
How about if one of you SYSOPs compile a list of addresses for all the
regular shareware authors (for such programs as UEdit, ConMan, RRD, etc),
and either put it somewhere in the DL, or – better yet – put it in a
bulletin, with a reminder to all of us to pay our dues.
I think the reason why many of us haven't done so yet stems from laziness,
and not out of greed or being cheap. When you buy a commercial package
you're forced to pay for it up front, but for a shareware product you keep
saying 'Oh yes, I gotta write a check for this guy… I'll do it
tommorrow…' – Steve –
Let me be heartless and cynical for a moment. People can beg for money all
sorts of ways. If this guy was wasting his time writing UEdit when he was
broke, without money for rent, and hoping people would send in cash to keep
him afloat, he can't have all his marbles. The guy who wrote the TAG BBS
played this same trick for a while, too, until a few more checks rolled in.
If this guy is so hot on statistics, then he'd know most shareware doesn't
make a dime.
Okay, are you through being heartless and cynical now? Let's be realistic
and look at it from _our_ perspective. Rick Stiles wrote one h*ll of a
good editor, and placed it into "almost" public domain. He asked for
donations from anyone who feels the program is worthy. I think anyone who
is _using_ UEdit by default considers it useful, and should get off their
wallets and send him some money. To not do so does potential harm to the
future of shareware for the Amiga.
Any question as to whether Rick Stiles is without a full complement of
marbles, was naive, is just stringing us along, or really is an okay guy
who's between a rock and a hard place does not even have to enter into the
issue.
It's very easy to be heartless and cynical. Lots of people are _very_ good
at it. It's much tougher to look at the whole issue from all available
sides. I'm not sure I've done it correctly once in my life. But I can
darn sure see that this man has produced what many consider a good product,
that shareware is a _joint_ proposition, and if we don't do our honest
part, it'll go the way of the dinosaurs. I, for one, don't want that to
happen.
Let me first re-state my positon so everyone knows from the start what it
is…I am in FULL agreement that those who use a shareware program should
send in a donation to the author. I am in FULL agreement with your posting
of the message about UEdit and requesting those who use it to send Rick
some money for his hard work and excellent program.
Now, with that said…I have to agree with John. Depending on shareware to
make a living just doesn't cut it. It's hard enough to make a living with
a commercially published and advertised program, let alone a shareware
program. Shareware should be a "spare time" task done for pleasure, to
demonstrate your programming skills or to interest a publisher in your
work. It shouldn't be done as a full time occupation….cuz the pay just
isn't there.
Even if everyone who downloaded UEdit from here paid Rick, it wouldn't be
enought to pay for more that a month or two's worth of rent (there have
been 125 downloads of it to date). Sure, there are other places it's
posted, and other ways of getting it…but of those 125 downloads, how many
are using it?
The history of shareware is that very few folks send in their "share" and
the rest don't. That's the "facts" whether we agree with them or not.
Things like this thread may prompt a few more to send in their money, and I
really hope it does raise the level of awareness (and return for the
author) of what goes into a program, and why we should pay for what we
use. But until such time as human nature takes a dramatic turn, and
everyone decides to pay for what they use (can we call that "universal
honesty"?)…it should be depended on only for "pocket change" and not for
day to day living expenses.
Okay, now let me restate MY position, as you seem to be reading something
I'm not (knowingly) writing. We are in full agreement as regards your
first paragraph. I believe if you find a shareware program useful on a
regular basis, you should make a contribution to the author. I obviously
agree about posting the original message of this thread, or I wouldn't have
done it.
From that point both you and John diverge from the issue at hand.
Paraphrased, John stated that there are lots of ways for people to beg for
money, and if Rick thought shareware would support him he wasn't very
bright. Let me reword my response to John: SO?
The personality and thought processes of Rick Stiles have absolutely
nothing to do with the issue I brought out and am continuing to uphold: if
you use shareware, particularly UEdit, PAY for it. The question of whether
Rick is really in a financial bind or just trying to beg sympathy, and if
the former how foolish a move he might have made, is not germaine to the
issue and is not something I am particularly interested in discussing. In
fact, I can't, since I don't know the facts of the case.
Please, if you guys want to chat about that part of it, fine… but don't
assume I've made a stance one way or the other, beyond saying that I
haven't taken a stance.
Is that clearer?
Rick
I think that reading the excerpt you posted, leaves one with the impression
that Rick had hoped to make enough money to pay the bills. And since it
wasn't, then he would have to move since he couldn't afford his rent, and
he would stay out of the shareware field in the future. I think John
simply posted an observation that Rick perhaps depended on income from
UEdit a bit too much and I agreed with that general observation.
I agree with the tennet that whether Rick is starving, or is a millionaire
should make no difference whatsoever in whether someone using UEdit sends
in a contribution or not. Rick has done a fine job, and if you use the
program then you should make a contribution…whether Rick is in financial
difficulty or not.
I also belive that since Rick broached the subject of his financial status
due to lack of income from UEdit…it was a fair subject for John to post
an observation about.
Since we all agree that if you use UEdit (or any shareware program) you
should make a contribution to the author's efforts…then I'll drop the
other issue, since it really is a side issue, and concentrate on the main
theme…if you use it, please pay for it.
Don, looks like we were in agreement all along. 8) Certainly John was not
out of line in bringing it up, since Rick did mention it in his mailing.
My observation in response was that it wasn't germaine to the reason I had
posted the message. Perhaps I shouldn't have included the part about
financial difficulties, but I felt it would help add weight to the issue.
Don, looks like we were in agreement all along. 8) Certainly John was not
out of line in bringing it up, since Rick did mention it in his mailing.
My observation in response was that it wasn't germaine to the reason I had
posted the message. Perhaps I shouldn't have included the part about
financial difficulties, but I felt it would help add weight to the issue.
I think that reading the excerpt you posted, leaves one with the impression
that Rick had hoped to make enough money to pay the bills. And since it
wasn't, then he would have to move since he couldn't afford his rent, and
he would stay out of the shareware field in the future. I think John
simply posted an observation that Rick perhaps depended on income from
UEdit a bit too much and I agreed with that general observation.
I agree with the tennet that whether Rick is starving, or is a millionaire
should make no difference whatsoever in whether someone using UEdit sends
in a contribution or not. Rick has done a fine job, and if you use the
program then you should make a contribution…whether Rick is in financial
difficulty or not.
I also belive that since Rick broached the subject of his financial status
due to lack of income from UEdit…it was a fair subject for John to post
an observation about.
Since we all agree that if you use UEdit (or any shareware program) you
should make a contribution to the author's efforts…then I'll drop the
other issue, since it really is a side issue, and concentrate on the main
theme…if you use it, please pay for it.
Let's talk about styles. I didn't think it was cool, in a personal or
ethical or business sense, for him to play up his financial hardship to get
more people to pay for UEdit. That's all. I agree, if you like it, send
him money. The death of UEdit does not mean the Death of All Amiga
Shareware. Such statements are needless melodrama. I don't like
statements such as "Stiles Will Be Called Home By God if he doesn't make
this month's rent!" If the personal thoughts and business affairs of
Stiles have no bearing in this situation, why did Stiles bring them up? (I
just got the latest issue of the CAUSER newsletter, called Gadget. In it,
the newsletter editor said God would "call him home" unless they bought him
a laser printer for the next issue.)
Let's talk about styles. I didn't think it was cool, in a personal or
ethical or business sense, for him to play up his financial hardship to get
more people to pay for UEdit. That's all. I agree, if you like it, send
him money. The death of UEdit does not mean the Death of All Amiga
Shareware. Such statements are needless melodrama. I don't like
statements such as "Stiles Will Be Called Home By God if he doesn't make
this month's rent!" If the personal thoughts and business affairs of
Stiles have no bearing in this situation, why did Stiles bring them up? (I
just got the latest issue of the CAUSER newsletter, called Gadget. In it,
the newsletter editor said God would "call him home" unless they bought him
a laser printer for the next issue.)
Okay, now let me restate MY position, as you seem to be reading something
I'm not (knowingly) writing. We are in full agreement as regards your
first paragraph. I believe if you find a shareware program useful on a
regular basis, you should make a contribution to the author. I obviously
agree about posting the original message of this thread, or I wouldn't have
done it.
From that point both you and John diverge from the issue at hand.
Paraphrased, John stated that there are lots of ways for people to beg for
money, and if Rick thought shareware would support him he wasn't very
bright. Let me reword my response to John: SO?
The personality and thought processes of Rick Stiles have absolutely
nothing to do with the issue I brought out and am continuing to uphold: if
you use shareware, particularly UEdit, PAY for it. The question of whether
Rick is really in a financial bind or just trying to beg sympathy, and if
the former how foolish a move he might have made, is not germaine to the
issue and is not something I am particularly interested in discussing. In
fact, I can't, since I don't know the facts of the case.
Please, if you guys want to chat about that part of it, fine… but don't
assume I've made a stance one way or the other, beyond saying that I
haven't taken a stance.
Is that clearer?
Rick
Agreed! It is a sad commentary for the human race but unfortunately
accurate. We westerners have a now longstanding tendency to take the short
side view of things. It is in all of our best interests to support
'share-ware' to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately many think that
'it will be ok if 'I' don't make a payment…..the guy will get enough from
all the other people…..etc.' The sad thing is that probably the vast
majority take that stand.
Now there is not any way that I would contribute for every program that I
have down-loaded (or purchased from a users group) because the majority of
software that I have accumulate is worthless to me. Some because it is of
low quality, some because it is incompatable with other software that I
insist on having in the machine all the time and most because I was just on
the disk and I have never even tried to use it. But the stuff that is
really good and even more importantly, the stuff that I use……well the
author deserves my support.
Purchased from a user group???
Whew! This is a whole new bag of snakes. Our local users group, Panorama,
_gives_ PD and sharware programs out. Each meeting (we meet twice per
month) sees everyone bringing 2 disks, which they hand in at the beginning
of the meeting and give back at the end, complete with lots of goodies.
About twice oops… about every two months, we have a "PD party" at which
members may catch up on early disks they've missed, Freed Fish disks, etc.
I thought about how that might sound when I wrote it but figgured that no
one would think that I meant 'sale' of public domain software! Many users
groups charge for disks containing PD/shareware software. Typically $4 to
$6 dollars per disk and all that I have seen charge the same fee regardless
of what is present on the disk or how much/little software the disk may
contain. Personally I think $6/disk is a little much but then I have not
tried to maintain a large users group disk library either. I am sure that
the 'excess' beyond the actual disk cost probably does not go far toward
paying for all of the long/distance down-load time, wear and tear on the
machines much less the time spent by the 'librarian.'
Collecting PD software and organizing it onto disks is an incredible time sink,
especially if you want to make it Workbench- and user-friendly.
Collecting PD software and organizing it onto disks is an incredible time sink,
especially if you want to make it Workbench- and user-friendly.
I thought about how that might sound when I wrote it but figgured that no
one would think that I meant 'sale' of public domain software! Many users
groups charge for disks containing PD/shareware software. Typically $4 to
$6 dollars per disk and all that I have seen charge the same fee regardless
of what is present on the disk or how much/little software the disk may
contain. Personally I think $6/disk is a little much but then I have not
tried to maintain a large users group disk library either. I am sure that
the 'excess' beyond the actual disk cost probably does not go far toward
paying for all of the long/distance down-load time, wear and tear on the
machines much less the time spent by the 'librarian.'
Lots of groups sell public domain disks. Alternately, many people buy PD disks
when they don't have to. In fact, I realized that was a good way for groups to
earn money, and encouraged this practice with the AMICUS disks. I thought a
lot of groups could use the money to get off the ground. Now that they are, of
course, it is all graft and corruption. Even AmigaWorld has caught on; last
issue they said they were starting a PD collection as well. I'm sure they
won't charge $1.50 a disk.
What about the user groups (such as the BCS) that re-condense the Fish and
AMICUS disks into custom PD collections, and then charge even more? Then sell
the same data again when they remove updated software and re-number the disks?
The graft goes on and on. The software producers never see a dime, yet all
sorts of money changes hands because of their work. Go figure.
Hi John! I just wanted to drop my 5 cents in on this subject. I think the
problem with shareware is that once it's in your hand you tend not to have
any motivation to pay for it. The only motivation is guilt! I think that a
lot of user groups can do more good than individuals. A user group could
put together disk of shareware and sell it for little more than the usual
PD disks (like for $6 instead of $3). Then the extra money could be donated
to the authors. Since user group librarians are usually more sympathetic
towards shareware producers they'd remmember to send in the money. As for
the poor guy who uses shareware, he'll just have to put a little money up
front and then will not have feel guilty. In fact, our NYC users group
AMUSE, did something like it – it gave some money to a number of people who
contributed useful PD software for the Amiga (I got one of those checks).
Although the amount would not cover anyone's rent, it's nice to feel
appreciated. Another idea (also started by AMUSE) is to have the user group
"commision" a piece of software. This way the progammers can some money,
and everyone gets a nice PD program. …so what do you
think…….Richie…
Hi John! I just wanted to drop my 5 cents in on this subject. I think the
problem with shareware is that once it's in your hand you tend not to have
any motivation to pay for it. The only motivation is guilt! I think that a
lot of user groups can do more good than individuals. A user group could
put together disk of shareware and sell it for little more than the usual
PD disks (like for $6 instead of $3). Then the extra money could be donated
to the authors. Since user group librarians are usually more sympathetic
towards shareware producers they'd remmember to send in the money. As for
the poor guy who uses shareware, he'll just have to put a little money up
front and then will not have feel guilty. In fact, our NYC users group
AMUSE, did something like it – it gave some money to a number of people who
contributed useful PD software for the Amiga (I got one of those checks).
Although the amount would not cover anyone's rent, it's nice to feel
appreciated. Another idea (also started by AMUSE) is to have the user group
"commision" a piece of software. This way the progammers can some money,
and everyone gets a nice PD program. …so what do you
think…….Richie…
Lots of groups sell public domain disks. Alternately, many people buy PD disks
when they don't have to. In fact, I realized that was a good way for groups to
earn money, and encouraged this practice with the AMICUS disks. I thought a
lot of groups could use the money to get off the ground. Now that they are, of
course, it is all graft and corruption. Even AmigaWorld has caught on; last
issue they said they were starting a PD collection as well. I'm sure they
won't charge $1.50 a disk.
What about the user groups (such as the BCS) that re-condense the Fish and
AMICUS disks into custom PD collections, and then charge even more? Then sell
the same data again when they remove updated software and re-number the disks?
The graft goes on and on. The software producers never see a dime, yet all
sorts of money changes hands because of their work. Go figure.
Purchased from a user group???
Whew! This is a whole new bag of snakes. Our local users group, Panorama,
_gives_ PD and sharware programs out. Each meeting (we meet twice per
month) sees everyone bringing 2 disks, which they hand in at the beginning
of the meeting and give back at the end, complete with lots of goodies.
About twice oops… about every two months, we have a "PD party" at which
members may catch up on early disks they've missed, Freed Fish disks, etc.
Agreed! It is a sad commentary for the human race but unfortunately
accurate. We westerners have a now longstanding tendency to take the short
side view of things. It is in all of our best interests to support
'share-ware' to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately many think that
'it will be ok if 'I' don't make a payment…..the guy will get enough from
all the other people…..etc.' The sad thing is that probably the vast
majority take that stand.
Now there is not any way that I would contribute for every program that I
have down-loaded (or purchased from a users group) because the majority of
software that I have accumulate is worthless to me. Some because it is of
low quality, some because it is incompatable with other software that I
insist on having in the machine all the time and most because I was just on
the disk and I have never even tried to use it. But the stuff that is
really good and even more importantly, the stuff that I use……well the
author deserves my support.
Thanks for agreeing, Don. 🙂 I think shareware is an excellent way for a
freelance programmer to gain a reputation. I think a public domain disk
collection is a good way to get your name known, too. I don't think people
should sacrifice their talents in any way. This may sound funny, but I
don't like the concept of public domain, because I think it has encouraged
people to give up their lifeblood, their cherished creations. Look at
DirUtil, and how it became CLImate, and how CLImate sales are stifled by
its own progeny. There are many programs I have written that couldn't be
sold or marketed, so I give them away. It doesn't mean that I should
always give away my products, or that I am forced to in any way. I don't
like the idea of people thinking they'll be the next Andy Fluegelman by
giving away an editor.
I've also heard some legitimate complaints from a few software companies
that "freeware" or PD programs are cutting into the market. In a sense,
I'd have to agree with their points also. I don't want to stifle the PD
concept, but by the same token, I don't want to see it flooded with "almost
good enought" programs.
This is a very complex issue. Certainly the commercial programs should be
better than anything that is available via the PD/Shareware route…but in
some cases, that means that the commercial program will be so powerful
and/or complex and/or costly that it won't sell very well, since most folks
really only need the feature of the PD/Shareware stuff. Attempting to sell
a program that meets the needs of the majority…when there is a PD program
that alreadys does that doesn't make much sense. Why would someone pay $30
– $80 for a program they can pick up for the cost of a PD collection disk,
or download from a network or pick up as a giveaway by a dealer? Thus, the
commercial program includes other goodies (and higher cost)…and folks
think, "Why should I pay for those goodies, I don't need them, won't use
them and the program costs too much".
Of course, the other side of the coin is that why should folks buy a
program when they just want to "play" with an idea, and can use
PD/Shareware to that end. Example…the PD 68K assembler we have here. I
haven't tried it, but understand it's quite useful. For someone attempting
to see if they want to try assembly with the Amiga…it's a good thing, and
why should they have to pay for a full blown assembler package if they
aren't sure they'll like assembler programming on the Amiga.
Same goes for word processing. If someone only writes a letter every 6
months, why should they buy a full blown word processor when something like
UEdit will serve their needs…but why should a software company publish a
low end WP program to serve these users (even for $30) when folks can get
PD/Shareware for "free".
It's a complex issue, and to be honest…I don't know what the real answer
to it is.
Perhaps I have a naive view of the whole thing, but I figure that if
someone can write a good program in his spare time and figure it isn't good
enough to put on the market, then certainly someone who writes software for
a living can write something a _lot_ better and charge a reasonable price
for it. Again, it's a matter of perceived value. I know people who will
actually spend a lot of money on a less than adequate commercial program in
preference to obtaining a PD offering that does a better job, just because
"The PD one can't possibly be good or it would be on the market."
Needless to say, I don't have a lot of respect for the customer or the
software gouse when I see this happen. I really have grave misgivings about
a company exploiting those that don't know any better.
PD programs should serve as a yardstick for software houses, not as a
crying towel to blame when an inferior, overpriced product doesn't sell.
Basically, if they can't do better than the PD equivalent, perhaps they
should look into the opportunities available in aluminum siding sales or
restaurant franchises.
I don't disagree with you as a general statement, but there are some very
complex issues here. Since we have quite a number of PD/Shareware terminal
programs…let's use them as a case in point.
How many users need a terminal program "better" than the offerings we have
here? How many users need a terminal program at all? I think you'll find
a vast difference in those 2 numbers. Now, if a software company produces
a "good" terminal program, but a basic one…one without all the bells and
whistles, they will appeal to those in category 2, but not in category 1
above. Since we have equivalent programs in the DL's (including a
bootstrap program), sales for this basic terminal program will probably be
poor…thus the commercial program probably won't be released.
Now, take those that need something better than we have here. Something
with all the bells and whistles. Folks in category 2 don't need, nor do
they want to pay for all the bells and whistles…and folks in category 1
are limited, so the market is limited…perhaps so limited that either the
software will cost quite a bit just to recover development costs, or it
won't hit the market at all due to low expected sales.
Does this mean that software companies shouldn't publish terminal programs
any more? Or does it mean that they can't expect a payback of development
costs (due to low sales and/or low prices in an attempt to sell a
reasonable number of copies) for a couple of years or longer?
There are 200,000 Amigas out there (in round numbers) and surveys show that
30% of them have modems…60,000. Of those 60,000…(who all need a
terminal program), I suspect that only about 5,000 need all the bells and
whistles. Since normal gross profit would run about $20/copy…then the
publisher would have to sell to each and every one of those 5,000 folks
just to make up development and marketing costs…with 0 profit left over.
To me, that's not reasonable. So the only way out, is to either not
publish, or get gross profits up…and the only way to do that is to
increase cost to the user. Now neither of those alternatives is acceptable
to me.
There are other factors, not everyone in category 2 uses a PD/Shareware
terminal program…and even some who do, also own a commercial program. So
the numbers aren't as "bleak" as they seem. But they could be, and that's
the scary part. When you are writing software for a PC, with an installed
base of millions, then the numbers don't matter…the 2.5% who need the
bells and whistles comprise a large enought market segment that sales to
them alone, among several vendors comprise enough potential sales to make a
reasonable profit. When you are dealing with a limited market such as the
present group of Amiga owners, then the potential sales numbers are
relatively small.
Look at the publishers who have shied away from Amiga development until the
numbers get bigger. Borland for one has said it will produce Amiga
products, but only when a certain number of machines have sold (I forget
the number, but it's large…and we're not there yet). I presume the same
holds true for other "biggies". That leaves the market to the smaller
publishers for now, and those are the very companies that can't afford to
gamble very much since they don't have large cash reserves to back them
up.
Like I said…I certainly don't want to limit the PD/Shareware offerings,
but by the same token, I don't want to limit the market availability for
the commercial companies either. The Amiga will rise or fall on software,
commercial software….the PD/Shareware offerings are "nice" but the
commercial offerings are a "must" for the Amiga to survive.
Again…a very complex issue, and one with no easy answers…or at least I
haven't heard any simple answers…and I certainly don't have any.
I don't disagree with you as a general statement, but there are some very
complex issues here. Since we have quite a number of PD/Shareware terminal
programs…let's use them as a case in point.
How many users need a terminal program "better" than the offerings we have
here? How many users need a terminal program at all? I think you'll find
a vast difference in those 2 numbers. Now, if a software company produces
a "good" terminal program, but a basic one…one without all the bells and
whistles, they will appeal to those in category 2, but not in category 1
above. Since we have equivalent programs in the DL's (including a
bootstrap program), sales for this basic terminal program will probably be
poor…thus the commercial program probably won't be released.
Now, take those that need something better than we have here. Something
with all the bells and whistles. Folks in category 2 don't need, nor do
they want to pay for all the bells and whistles…and folks in category 1
are limited, so the market is limited…perhaps so limited that either the
software will cost quite a bit just to recover development costs, or it
won't hit the market at all due to low expected sales.
Does this mean that software companies shouldn't publish terminal programs
any more? Or does it mean that they can't expect a payback of development
costs (due to low sales and/or low prices in an attempt to sell a
reasonable number of copies) for a couple of years or longer?
There are 200,000 Amigas out there (in round numbers) and surveys show that
30% of them have modems…60,000. Of those 60,000…(who all need a
terminal program), I suspect that only about 5,000 need all the bells and
whistles. Since normal gross profit would run about $20/copy…then the
publisher would have to sell to each and every one of those 5,000 folks
just to make up development and marketing costs…with 0 profit left over.
To me, that's not reasonable. So the only way out, is to either not
publish, or get gross profits up…and the only way to do that is to
increase cost to the user. Now neither of those alternatives is acceptable
to me.
There are other factors, not everyone in category 2 uses a PD/Shareware
terminal program…and even some who do, also own a commercial program. So
the numbers aren't as "bleak" as they seem. But they could be, and that's
the scary part. When you are writing software for a PC, with an installed
base of millions, then the numbers don't matter…the 2.5% who need the
bells and whistles comprise a large enought market segment that sales to
them alone, among several vendors comprise enough potential sales to make a
reasonable profit. When you are dealing with a limited market such as the
present group of Amiga owners, then the potential sales numbers are
relatively small.
Look at the publishers who have shied away from Amiga development until the
numbers get bigger. Borland for one has said it will produce Amiga
products, but only when a certain number of machines have sold (I forget
the number, but it's large…and we're not there yet). I presume the same
holds true for other "biggies". That leaves the market to the smaller
publishers for now, and those are the very companies that can't afford to
gamble very much since they don't have large cash reserves to back them
up.
Like I said…I certainly don't want to limit the PD/Shareware offerings,
but by the same token, I don't want to limit the market availability for
the commercial companies either. The Amiga will rise or fall on software,
commercial software….the PD/Shareware offerings are "nice" but the
commercial offerings are a "must" for the Amiga to survive.
Again…a very complex issue, and one with no easy answers…or at least I
haven't heard any simple answers…and I certainly don't have any.
Just to keep this ball rolling, I have a few more questions for the crowd. How
does one determine the level of "usefulness" that marks the point at which one
is obligated to pay the shareware developer? Are a series of niggling
complaints such as "It doesn't work with my favorite PD program" legitimate
reasons for not sending payment? After all, could you use the same excuse
against a commercial program, after you bought it? What if might find the
program useful, but do not agree to their terms? What if I wrote an editor,
and asked for $149.95 if you found it useful? (P.S. I paid more than that for
my MS-DOS editor. I use 'ed' and the PD MicroEmacs on the Amiga. By reading
this notice, you hereby agree to it. Send me $100 if you find this useful.
Send me $200 if you ever talk about it in a commercial environment.)
I think the first question has an obvious answer in most cases. That
is if you USE the program….pay for it.
I have not personally seen requests for outrageous sums of money. I
personally believe that they would be counterproductive (ie: if some fellow
was using the program and felt that the sum asked for was outrageous then
he would be inclined to not send anything rather than suffer from being
considered cheap by sending in a lesser amount, not to mention the wonder
about the legal implications).
If the program was indeed buggy in some way then I suspect that it would be
easy to send in a lessor amount and include explaination as to why. What
the legal and ethical bases would be though, I have no idea.
I think the first question has an obvious answer in most cases. That
is if you USE the program….pay for it.
I have not personally seen requests for outrageous sums of money. I
personally believe that they would be counterproductive (ie: if some fellow
was using the program and felt that the sum asked for was outrageous then
he would be inclined to not send anything rather than suffer from being
considered cheap by sending in a lesser amount, not to mention the wonder
about the legal implications).
If the program was indeed buggy in some way then I suspect that it would be
easy to send in a lessor amount and include explaination as to why. What
the legal and ethical bases would be though, I have no idea.
Just to keep this ball rolling, I have a few more questions for the crowd. How
does one determine the level of "usefulness" that marks the point at which one
is obligated to pay the shareware developer? Are a series of niggling
complaints such as "It doesn't work with my favorite PD program" legitimate
reasons for not sending payment? After all, could you use the same excuse
against a commercial program, after you bought it? What if might find the
program useful, but do not agree to their terms? What if I wrote an editor,
and asked for $149.95 if you found it useful? (P.S. I paid more than that for
my MS-DOS editor. I use 'ed' and the PD MicroEmacs on the Amiga. By reading
this notice, you hereby agree to it. Send me $100 if you find this useful.
Send me $200 if you ever talk about it in a commercial environment.)
Perhaps I have a naive view of the whole thing, but I figure that if
someone can write a good program in his spare time and figure it isn't good
enough to put on the market, then certainly someone who writes software for
a living can write something a _lot_ better and charge a reasonable price
for it. Again, it's a matter of perceived value. I know people who will
actually spend a lot of money on a less than adequate commercial program in
preference to obtaining a PD offering that does a better job, just because
"The PD one can't possibly be good or it would be on the market."
Needless to say, I don't have a lot of respect for the customer or the
software gouse when I see this happen. I really have grave misgivings about
a company exploiting those that don't know any better.
PD programs should serve as a yardstick for software houses, not as a
crying towel to blame when an inferior, overpriced product doesn't sell.
Basically, if they can't do better than the PD equivalent, perhaps they
should look into the opportunities available in aluminum siding sales or
restaurant franchises.
I've also heard some legitimate complaints from a few software companies
that "freeware" or PD programs are cutting into the market. In a sense,
I'd have to agree with their points also. I don't want to stifle the PD
concept, but by the same token, I don't want to see it flooded with "almost
good enought" programs.
This is a very complex issue. Certainly the commercial programs should be
better than anything that is available via the PD/Shareware route…but in
some cases, that means that the commercial program will be so powerful
and/or complex and/or costly that it won't sell very well, since most folks
really only need the feature of the PD/Shareware stuff. Attempting to sell
a program that meets the needs of the majority…when there is a PD program
that alreadys does that doesn't make much sense. Why would someone pay $30
– $80 for a program they can pick up for the cost of a PD collection disk,
or download from a network or pick up as a giveaway by a dealer? Thus, the
commercial program includes other goodies (and higher cost)…and folks
think, "Why should I pay for those goodies, I don't need them, won't use
them and the program costs too much".
Of course, the other side of the coin is that why should folks buy a
program when they just want to "play" with an idea, and can use
PD/Shareware to that end. Example…the PD 68K assembler we have here. I
haven't tried it, but understand it's quite useful. For someone attempting
to see if they want to try assembly with the Amiga…it's a good thing, and
why should they have to pay for a full blown assembler package if they
aren't sure they'll like assembler programming on the Amiga.
Same goes for word processing. If someone only writes a letter every 6
months, why should they buy a full blown word processor when something like
UEdit will serve their needs…but why should a software company publish a
low end WP program to serve these users (even for $30) when folks can get
PD/Shareware for "free".
It's a complex issue, and to be honest…I don't know what the real answer
to it is.
Thanks for agreeing, Don. 🙂 I think shareware is an excellent way for a
freelance programmer to gain a reputation. I think a public domain disk
collection is a good way to get your name known, too. I don't think people
should sacrifice their talents in any way. This may sound funny, but I
don't like the concept of public domain, because I think it has encouraged
people to give up their lifeblood, their cherished creations. Look at
DirUtil, and how it became CLImate, and how CLImate sales are stifled by
its own progeny. There are many programs I have written that couldn't be
sold or marketed, so I give them away. It doesn't mean that I should
always give away my products, or that I am forced to in any way. I don't
like the idea of people thinking they'll be the next Andy Fluegelman by
giving away an editor.
Let me first re-state my positon so everyone knows from the start what it
is…I am in FULL agreement that those who use a shareware program should
send in a donation to the author. I am in FULL agreement with your posting
of the message about UEdit and requesting those who use it to send Rick
some money for his hard work and excellent program.
Now, with that said…I have to agree with John. Depending on shareware to
make a living just doesn't cut it. It's hard enough to make a living with
a commercially published and advertised program, let alone a shareware
program. Shareware should be a "spare time" task done for pleasure, to
demonstrate your programming skills or to interest a publisher in your
work. It shouldn't be done as a full time occupation….cuz the pay just
isn't there.
Even if everyone who downloaded UEdit from here paid Rick, it wouldn't be
enought to pay for more that a month or two's worth of rent (there have
been 125 downloads of it to date). Sure, there are other places it's
posted, and other ways of getting it…but of those 125 downloads, how many
are using it?
The history of shareware is that very few folks send in their "share" and
the rest don't. That's the "facts" whether we agree with them or not.
Things like this thread may prompt a few more to send in their money, and I
really hope it does raise the level of awareness (and return for the
author) of what goes into a program, and why we should pay for what we
use. But until such time as human nature takes a dramatic turn, and
everyone decides to pay for what they use (can we call that "universal
honesty"?)…it should be depended on only for "pocket change" and not for
day to day living expenses.
OK, I'm done being overtly cynical, I'll return to my normal level. I
agree with your points. If I use a shareware product, I start thinking
about paying for it. I must admit, I don't always, but that's part of the
shareware game, isn't it? I don't give quarters to every street musician I
listen to. Whether or not he has covered his business or living expenses
should make absolutely no difference to my purchase, so his newsletter plea
seems no more than a plea for charity.
To say that a product is freely distributable and useable up to a certain
point, and then beyond that point, you must send in money, doesn't make a
lot of sense to me as a business premise. It is interesting to me that
shareware authors and pirates think of software in the same way: If they
think a product is useful, they'll buy it. Shareware is a risky venture at
best. Selling it would at least mean a dribble of cash. If UEdit is so
hot, why not sell it, but make a demo version freely distributable? Ads in
Amazing Computing are less than, oh, $300 a quarter page.
Rick tried to sell UEDIT through a couple of publishers before taking it
shareware. It was the Microforge editor, if I remember correctly. Having
somebody else sell it means a dribble of cash; selling it yourself means a
sizable outflow of cash, lots of non-programming work, and perhaps a
dribble of cash. (-:
Rick tried to sell UEDIT through a couple of publishers before taking it
shareware. It was the Microforge editor, if I remember correctly. Having
somebody else sell it means a dribble of cash; selling it yourself means a
sizable outflow of cash, lots of non-programming work, and perhaps a
dribble of cash. (-:
OK, I'm done being overtly cynical, I'll return to my normal level. I
agree with your points. If I use a shareware product, I start thinking
about paying for it. I must admit, I don't always, but that's part of the
shareware game, isn't it? I don't give quarters to every street musician I
listen to. Whether or not he has covered his business or living expenses
should make absolutely no difference to my purchase, so his newsletter plea
seems no more than a plea for charity.
To say that a product is freely distributable and useable up to a certain
point, and then beyond that point, you must send in money, doesn't make a
lot of sense to me as a business premise. It is interesting to me that
shareware authors and pirates think of software in the same way: If they
think a product is useful, they'll buy it. Shareware is a risky venture at
best. Selling it would at least mean a dribble of cash. If UEdit is so
hot, why not sell it, but make a demo version freely distributable? Ads in
Amazing Computing are less than, oh, $300 a quarter page.
Okay, are you through being heartless and cynical now? Let's be realistic
and look at it from _our_ perspective. Rick Stiles wrote one h*ll of a
good editor, and placed it into "almost" public domain. He asked for
donations from anyone who feels the program is worthy. I think anyone who
is _using_ UEdit by default considers it useful, and should get off their
wallets and send him some money. To not do so does potential harm to the
future of shareware for the Amiga.
Any question as to whether Rick Stiles is without a full complement of
marbles, was naive, is just stringing us along, or really is an okay guy
who's between a rock and a hard place does not even have to enter into the
issue.
It's very easy to be heartless and cynical. Lots of people are _very_ good
at it. It's much tougher to look at the whole issue from all available
sides. I'm not sure I've done it correctly once in my life. But I can
darn sure see that this man has produced what many consider a good product,
that shareware is a _joint_ proposition, and if we don't do our honest
part, it'll go the way of the dinosaurs. I, for one, don't want that to
happen.
Let me be heartless and cynical for a moment. People can beg for money all
sorts of ways. If this guy was wasting his time writing UEdit when he was
broke, without money for rent, and hoping people would send in cash to keep
him afloat, he can't have all his marbles. The guy who wrote the TAG BBS
played this same trick for a while, too, until a few more checks rolled in.
If this guy is so hot on statistics, then he'd know most shareware doesn't
make a dime.
I have to admit that I have yet to send in for my official Uedit. This has
made me decide to go and send him the money right now, because it is the
best text editor I've ever seen for any machine, any price, any time. If I
get it to do some formatting also, it may even take over some of my word
processing needs also.
However, I must agree that shareware should be just a way for the author to
get some reward for his efforts. NOT a way to pay your rent. It just
doesn't provide that much income. I also wish shareware well, in general,
as if I actually write something myself which is genuinely useful, I may do
something like that myself. (Although I won't expect enough to buy a
cheese coney regularly with from it)
Thank you, Mowgli. One person (you) telling me that you're sending in your
donation makes this all worthwhile.
Count me in, too. I mailed my donation yesterday, even if I haven't used
UEdit much, because it would not allow using the alternate character set.
I wrote Rick a letter and complained about it a couple of months ago and
what happened ? He apparently listened and modified UEdit ! From version
2.1 it should be possible to use most Amiga characters, but I believe, that
it requires his "commercial" version and some programming to do it.
Believe it or not, he's up to version 2.2 now. (Gee, it changes almost as
fast as PRDRGN… hehe).
Changes from 2.0: Fast smooth scrolling (don't know if this is the
traditional "smooth scroll", or if he just means it's fast and not jerky),
European umlaut support (YOU should like that one…), keyboard mapping,
virtual key commands, small no-compile version, workbench Icon support,
menu redefinition and startup command recompile during editing, and other
enhancements and bug fixes.
Believe it or not, he's up to version 2.2 now. (Gee, it changes almost as
fast as PRDRGN… hehe).
Changes from 2.0: Fast smooth scrolling (don't know if this is the
traditional "smooth scroll", or if he just means it's fast and not jerky),
European umlaut support (YOU should like that one…), keyboard mapping,
virtual key commands, small no-compile version, workbench Icon support,
menu redefinition and startup command recompile during editing, and other
enhancements and bug fixes.
Count me in, too. I mailed my donation yesterday, even if I haven't used
UEdit much, because it would not allow using the alternate character set.
I wrote Rick a letter and complained about it a couple of months ago and
what happened ? He apparently listened and modified UEdit ! From version
2.1 it should be possible to use most Amiga characters, but I believe, that
it requires his "commercial" version and some programming to do it.
Thank you, Mowgli. One person (you) telling me that you're sending in your
donation makes this all worthwhile.
I have to admit that I have yet to send in for my official Uedit. This has
made me decide to go and send him the money right now, because it is the
best text editor I've ever seen for any machine, any price, any time. If I
get it to do some formatting also, it may even take over some of my word
processing needs also.
However, I must agree that shareware should be just a way for the author to
get some reward for his efforts. NOT a way to pay your rent. It just
doesn't provide that much income. I also wish shareware well, in general,
as if I actually write something myself which is genuinely useful, I may do
something like that myself. (Although I won't expect enough to buy a
cheese coney regularly with from it)
Just a note to tell you all of an interesting development.
Paul Ruiterman, writing in the June 1987 Panorama View, the newsletter of
Panorama, a Vancouver BC Amiga users group, says that Atephen Vermeulen,
the author of VDraw, a shareware painting program, has received only 18
donations. Stephen has now advised that the last "freely distributable"
version of CDraw will be 1.21, because he has signed an agreement to have
VDraw distributed by a US company as a commercial program. It will be
called ExpressPaint, and will be available at your local dealers.
Of course if you have been using VDraw, and have not sent in your
contribution, you will pay full price for the commercial version should you
want it. If you have sent in a contribution, you will be eligible for a
very low cost upgrade to the commercially released version, as Stephen has
made that part of the deal with the company to distribute ExpressPaint. The
final released commercial version willbe much improved, including "desktop
publishing" support.
Paul writes, in his last paragraph…
"… if you can't afford the asking price, then any amount would be
better than nothing, especially if you let the author know your
circumstances and that you appreciate his or her efforts. People need
encouragement."
Regards, Larry.
Just a note to tell you all of an interesting development.
Paul Ruiterman, writing in the June 1987 Panorama View, the newsletter of
Panorama, a Vancouver BC Amiga users group, says that Atephen Vermeulen,
the author of VDraw, a shareware painting program, has received only 18
donations. Stephen has now advised that the last "freely distributable"
version of CDraw will be 1.21, because he has signed an agreement to have
VDraw distributed by a US company as a commercial program. It will be
called ExpressPaint, and will be available at your local dealers.
Of course if you have been using VDraw, and have not sent in your
contribution, you will pay full price for the commercial version should you
want it. If you have sent in a contribution, you will be eligible for a
very low cost upgrade to the commercially released version, as Stephen has
made that part of the deal with the company to distribute ExpressPaint. The
final released commercial version willbe much improved, including "desktop
publishing" support.
Paul writes, in his last paragraph…
"… if you can't afford the asking price, then any amount would be
better than nothing, especially if you let the author know your
circumstances and that you appreciate his or her efforts. People need
encouragement."
Regards, Larry.