Re: 'Reclassification' terms

[CUTblakeney@home.com (Jeff Blakeney)]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 09:50:57 +1000, Willie Yeo <willie@ssc.qld.edu.au>
wrote:

>    Geesh, I hate to get involved with the Dean, but then, we have to look at some
>citerias of the term 'reclassified' softwares.

Not a problem.  I don't think anyone has ever really discussed what
reclassification means before.

>    Commercial products comes under three categories :
>
>1)    Publishers / Authors who sell themselves, or thru retailers
>
>2)    Publishers / Authors who allow others to distribute them for free with
>conditions.
>
>3)    Publishers / Authors who allow free downloads from their websites.
>
>    In other words, (1) is where you buy your software from software stores,
>mail-orders etc. In (2) we have people like Brutual Deluxe giving LemminGS to users
>of registered Bernie users, or DiversiTune in this case. And (3) Apple's HyperCard
>GS and System 6.0.1 from their FTP (and authorised mirrors) sites.

Using your example, DiversiTune went from number 1 to number 2.  Does
that not entail a reclassification in your mind?

>    Distribution status can change to whatever dispite a non-change in status.
>
>    Even said, there are shareware programs that are restricted. Or even Freewares
>that are restricted, eg Marinetti.
>
>    Even if one day Richard Bennett declares that Marinetti can be distributed from
>any FTP sites does not mean that their classification has changed.

Why wouldn't it?  If Richard were to allow more sites to distribute
Marinetti and I went to ground and found it there but was told that it
hadn't been reclassified, I would end up telling Richard that ground
was illegally distributing his software even though they weren't.

However, if I was told me it was reclassified to allow more places to
distribute it, I wouldn't be phased at all by seeing it on ground.

>    In my opinion, a change in classification will signify a 'reclassification'
>status, and a change in distribution methods does not signify a 'reclassification'
>status as there is no change in classification.

But the allowable distribution methods are an integral part of a piece
of software's classification.  When I want to know the status of a
piece of software, I need to know if it is commercial, shareware, etc
(products overall status), whether it is owned by someone (copyright
status) and where I can get it (allowable distribution methods).

>> I'm not sure if others agree with this concept or not but it seems to
>> me that it covers everything pretty well.
>
>    You're missing out Shareware -> Freewares ^.^

No, I don't think I did.  I said there are three things and if one
changes then the product has been reclassified.  In this case the
product's status changes from shareware to freeware (meaning they no
longer are charging money for it) but the copyright's status and
distribution methods stay the same.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Blakeney - Dean of the Apple II University in A2Pro on Delphi     |
|                    Delphi Apple II Forums Web Pages                    |
| A2: http://www.delphi.com/apple2   A2Pro: http://www.delphi.com/a2pro  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+