12Bytes Software license status

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Message
Author
atomizer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 am

12Bytes Software license status

#1 Post by atomizer »

[Moderator notes


[/note]


---

there has been some discussion on the forums recently regarding my software submissions to PF which i'd like to address...

i'm the developer for 12Bytes [dot] org software, most of which is now shareware and not portable (at least not after it's registered) and this has raised some feathers as my software remained listed here even after it went shareware. of course this is my fault; i should have announced the change and i never did. for that i apologize.

i would like to say however that i had NO intention of going the shareware route when i originally wrote the software, but after several thousand downloads and no donations i started to re-think my strategy and ended up packaging some clickbank desktop shortcuts with my software. when that produced absolutely nothing, i decided to take the next step and go shareware. i would have been much happier if i could have generated just $10 or $20 clams a day as freeware, but that didn't happen (actually the total donations to date is exactly: $0.00).

so... no huge mess in my mind so far, except that a some people here have given me some input while developing my software, which is now shareware, and they seem to feel kind of betrayed which i can completely understand. and so i am happily offering a free license key to anyone who has offered input which i have found useful (and that's probably most of it). i have no problem showing my gratitude and am grateful for the help i've received here. so if you'd like a free key (for any app, not necessarily the one you may have helped with), send me a PM with your email address.

as far the licensing/portability problem, that's something i need to re-think because i'd much rather stay portable where feasible.
Last edited by webfork on Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: developer no longer even mentions his own program on the site, zapping URL

carbonize
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:16 am
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: A Note Regarding 12Bytes Software

#2 Post by carbonize »

I'd say you're now going to find yourself with hardly any downloads at all. There are better ways of making revenue such as ads on your site. Also how clear was the donation link? As to hoping to have made $10 - $20 a day that just isn't going to happen. PSPad is one of the most popular text editors available for free and he accepts donations via multiple methods. For the month of May he only received $280 in donations, for April he only received $82 [source].

Atleast you are now giving thanks to the people on this site who have helped you in your work.

atomizer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 am

Re: A Note Regarding 12Bytes Software

#3 Post by atomizer »

in addition to shareware, i despise advertising as well :)

however, given a choice between the two...
i may well look into that. thanks

carbonize
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:16 am
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Re: A Note Regarding 12Bytes Software

#4 Post by carbonize »

I get the odd donation for the guestbook scrip it maintain but you have to make it very clear that you accept donations and how to donate. An Amazon wishlist is also a good thing and someone may occasionally buy you something.

atomizer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 am

Re: A Note Regarding 12Bytes Software

#5 Post by atomizer »

when i was accepting donations i think i made it pretty clear - i would display a donate link on the GUI and/or tray menu if there is one. also had a donate page on the website.

i'm looking into AdSense now - if i can get that up and running to my satisfaction and it works well enough, i'll GLADLY revert to a donationware model and, possibly, GPL the sources

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

AutoClipX adware and license issues

#6 Post by guinness »

Isn't this update still classed as Adware/Nagware though? Correct me if I'm wrong but you're intentionally including a 3rd party piece of software to download applications a user doesn't necessarily require. I know you say they can opt out, but it doesn't stop the fact this isn't required to run your application. Why do you think Piriform removed the 'Google Chrome' installer from their slim builds, so they could actually call it a freeware product and market it to freeware sites.

I'm sorry if you think I'm nagging, but I'm just being cautious especially with what has happened in the past.
Last edited by webfork on Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: merged two threads on the same topic, moving the moderator note to the top

atomizer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 am

Re: AutoClipX

#7 Post by atomizer »

if the user chooses not to install the 3rd party software, the installer downloads nothing, so i'm not sure how can it be considered adware/nagware when a) there's no 3rd party software in the installer, b) there are no ads, and c) they don't choose to install it? i also don't think 2 buttons labeled "accept" and "decline" constitute nagware, though i suppose you could call it a minor inconvenience to have to click "decline" if you don't want to install it.

on the other hand, if they DO choose to install the 3rd party software, then it's their choice and so, again, how is it ad/nagware if they wanted to install it?

i do see your point very clearly however; i also had a strong dislike for anything bundled with any installer, but it needs to recognized that nothing is installed *unless the user chooses to do so*. i also see the other side of the fence, which is that some developers actually need to eat, me being one of them, and i can appreciate why developers bundle 3rd party offers with their installers which i think is fine, *as long as one can opt out* without anything being installed.

i really don't see the point, nor do i think it's at all fair, to penalize a developer who writes software full-time because they love to do so but needs to feed themselves, especially when nothing is installed that the *user didn't choose to install*, while the guy that has a full-time job and can publish everything for free is the angel, especially when the only difference is a an offer to install something else, not an obligation.

i tried asking for donations at first and gave that a fair shot. amount donated: $0.00. so users seem to want it all - free software, AND no ethical obligation whatsoever to contribute a thin dime toward the effort of the developer, AND no ad/nagware, which they don't have to install anyway, but apparently that isn't good enough. i thought i was doing folks a favor by dumping the shareware licensing and offering free software.

so yes, i "intentionally" include an *offer* to install 3rd party software that isn't required for the application to run and no obligation to install it.

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: AutoClipX

#8 Post by I am Baas »

@guinness

PicPick installer comes bundled with "crap" (and I am sure there are more than just a few other apps in the DB that do the same thing) and we did not have an issue with it.

@atomizer

Will try to test AutoClipX later on this week.

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: AutoClipX

#9 Post by guinness »

I think you've forgotten an important fact, I develop software too, which I do to gain experience hence why I was awarded MVP status. I'm very much aware of how difficult it can be to make money in software design & know that donations lead to very little success, but if I don't pay for software why would I think the 'average Joe' could. Secondly who says all developers that publish software for FREE have a job? This is just my philosophy and I'm not saying you or anyone else has to adhere to it, so please don't change your coding philosophy.

Now let's break down your comments so we can both get a clearer understanding of the situation ...
if the user chooses not to install the 3rd party software, the installer downloads nothing, so i'm not sure how can it be considered adware/nagware when a) there's no 3rd party software in the installer, b) there are no ads, and c) they don't choose to install it? i also don't think 2 buttons labeled "accept" and "decline" constitute nagware, though i suppose you could call it a minor inconvenience to have to click "decline" if you don't want to install it.
Are you sure the installer doesn't download anything? Because disabling the network error produces an error that it can't connect to the Monetizer site to download the installer, which brings me on to the question of what data is transmitted and retained by Monetizer? In your license agreement it doesn't mention what data is stored by them or anything about an installer being downloaded and placed in the %TEMP% folder. The choice to 'Accept' or 'Decline' is irrelevant at that point as you've not been transparent with the user that the '3rd party installer' is downloaded beforehand, granted it isn't executed.
i do see your point very clearly however; i also had a strong dislike for anything bundled with any installer, but it needs to recognized that nothing is installed *unless the user chooses to do so*. i also see the other side of the fence, which is that some developers actually need to eat, me being one of them, and i can appreciate why developers bundle 3rd party offers with their installers which i think is fine, *as long as one can opt out* without anything being installed.
I think it's perfectly fine so long as they're clear about the process of what is happening during the installation procedure. I'm not all heartless I know people have to put food on the table. :)
i really don't see the point, nor do i think it's at all fair, to penalize a developer who writes software full-time because they love to do so but needs to feed themselves, especially when nothing is installed that the *user didn't choose to install*, while the guy that has a full-time job and can publish everything for free is the angel, especially when the only difference is a an offer to install something else, not an obligation.
Who said anything about penalising you? The discussion isn't about your integrity as a 'software developer' but whether or not this application constitutes as a crap/free/nagware application.

I think you forget I offered you a helping hand in the beginning with your FREE applications >> http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 031#p31031 so I'm just being diplomatic on what has been a touchy subject in the past. As I've mentioned you can't blame me for being a little cautious especially considering what happened last time.

Thanks.

I am Baas,

My concern isn't whether or not it should be included in the DB, just that you can't call it 100% freeware without pointing out that it contains 3rd party software. The PicPick entry is pretty clear that it contains a 3rd party application bundle, but surely this has changed to nagware too?

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: AutoClipX

#10 Post by I am Baas »

guinness wrote:My concern isn't whether or not it should be included in the DB, just that you can't call it 100% freeware without pointing out that it contains 3rd party software. The PicPick entry is pretty clear that it contains a 3rd party application bundle, but surely this has changed to nagware too?
Agreed.

Can't comment on PicPick. I ditched it a while ago.

atomizer
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:58 am

Re: AutoClipX

#11 Post by atomizer »

guinness wrote:... but if I don't pay for software why would I think the 'average Joe' could.
who is paying for software? that was the whole point in my changing to a freeware license and finding another way to monetize
Are you sure the installer doesn't download anything? Because disabling the network error produces an error that it can't connect to the Monetizer site to download the installer, which brings me on to the question of what data is transmitted and retained by Monetizer? In your license agreement it doesn't mention what data is stored by them or anything about an installer being downloaded and placed in the %TEMP% folder. The choice to 'Accept' or 'Decline' is irrelevant at that point as you've not been transparent with the user that the '3rd party installer' is downloaded beforehand, granted it isn't executed.
i'm sure geographic information is transmitted to them, which they use to decide what might suit the user best. also some companies don't pay for installs in certain geographic areas, so IM doesn't offer to install their products in those areas. if it means anything, they are "certified" (or whatever ya call it) by McAfee and working on their eTrust cert.
Who said anything about penalising you? The discussion isn't about your integrity as a 'software developer' but whether or not this application constitutes as a crap/free/nagware application.
my argument there is the same as what i said earlier; if they don't choose to install, nothing gets installed, so how can it be crapware if it doesn't exist? if they do install, then it probably isn't crapware to them and whether you or i think it is has no bearing. i would argue that windows is crapware in that anyone truly concerned with privacy and worried about data being harvested certainly isn't going to be using an operating system of which parts appear to be specifically designed to spy on them, so i think geographic information, and advertising/usage statistics if they do install the 3rd party s/w, may not be the top priority for discerning windows users. :shock:

neither of us like the idea of including co-bundles in installers, granted. the question for me is which is the lesser evil and i feel allot better about dumping the shareware license and including something no one has to install, or pay for, rather than dealing with licensing bullshit and paypal bullshit and other nonsense i have no desire to deal with. i think what i enjoyed the most was DELETING the references to the licensing code and actually chopping the size of the binary. if this works out, i'll be doing the same with the rest of my stuff.
I think you forget I offered you a helping hand in the beginning with your FREE applications >> http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 031#p31031 so I'm just being diplomatic on what has been a touchy subject in the past. As I've mentioned you can't blame me for being a little cautious especially considering what happened last time.
do you blame me because i didn't get it right the first time? if you have reservations about including it, that's fine. i'm not going to beg anyone for anything because that isn't me. as far as what happened before, i made my intention clear that i was thinking of going the shareware route if the donation idea went bust and, the way i see it, i don't think i was i under any sort of ethical contract to keep it forever free solely because some folks here (not just yourself) offered suggestions. i also happily offered free licenses to anyone who helped me.

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: AutoClipX

#12 Post by I am Baas »

@moderator

Please split/move the discussion about the installer to another sub-forum. It does not belong here. Thanks.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: AutoClipX - license discussion

#13 Post by webfork »

atomizer wrote:
guinness wrote:Isn't this update still classed as Adware/Nagware though? Correct me if I'm wrong but you're intentionally including a 3rd party piece of software to download applications a user doesn't necessarily require.
i really don't see the point, nor do i think it's at all fair, to penalize a developer who writes software full-time because they love to do so but needs to feed themselves
Its not a penalty -- it goes to the definition of "freeware". Calling programs with bundled software that provides revenue to the author "adware" has some precedent as its also Softpedia's policy. As for me, the focus for me is transparency: I think its important to explain clearly what a program does and doesn't do.
guinness wrote:The PicPick entry is pretty clear that it contains a 3rd party application bundle, but surely this has changed to nagware too?
PicPick -- using the process described -- doesn't ask the user to install anything so there's no nagging.
I am Baas wrote:Please split/move the discussion about the installer to another sub-forum. It does not belong here. Thanks.
All set.

User avatar
dany
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:26 pm
Location: netherlands

Re: AutoClipX

#14 Post by dany »

guinness wrote:Secondly who says all developers that publish software for FREE have a job?
I can't get my head around this. Did you make a typo or are you actually suggesting freeware developers are by definition unemployed? Or maybe I'm just misreading it... Sorry if it's off-topic.

User avatar
guinness
Posts: 4118
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: AutoClipX - license discussion

#15 Post by guinness »

dany,

The comment is merely debunking the idea that those who post FREEWARE applications have a job or can afford to do so, as was previously mentioned in this comment "while the guy that has a full-time job and can publish everything for free is the angel."

atomizer,

To sum up, I'm not saying it shouldn't be added to TPFC, I just think there should be more clarification about calling this product 'freeware.'

I don't blame anyone, I hope my overall tone has been perceived as non-aggressive because I would say exactly the same to any other AutoIt, C++, C or Java developer. I think I will bow out gracefully from the discussion and truthfully I wish you the best of luck, because I hate to see people fail in life. Also, if I see you post a help question in the AutoIt Forum I won't hesitate for one second to help you. :)

Thanks.

Post Reply