No, it doesn't help and no the results are not the same. Apparently to you it's
semantics, to me it's historical and relevance based.
"Freeware" and "Shareware" are meant by the authors to be free of commercial
encumberances, not necessarily meaning that the source code is freely
available. Ditto goes to those guys who claim they bettered un*x and
cp/m with AT&T and Digital's source code.
Adding a function as an add-on and repairs at the assembler or kernel level
are quite different. I'm quite surprised more code geeks don't speak that when
it's their "signature" they're talking about.
Another oft overlooked point is the fact that a majority of "Shareware" exists
solely that the author may remain free of support issues.
kg7fu
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999, you wrote:
>James,
>
>Yes, it was public domain, but it had the same results. Many people used Ward's
>code, improved upon it, some went commercial (closed source), but many also released
>their code. I was still using free CP/M communications software (with source code)
>well into the mid 80's because it was better than anything I could find for MS-DOS.
>
>Hope this helps!
>
>Rick
>
>Visit our Web Page at http://www.teamamerica.com
-------------------------------
James S. Kaplan KG7FU
Eugene Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rio.com/~kg7fu
Have YOU tried Linux today?
NAR# 74764
--------------------------------
