Hi, all! I'm new to this forum, but it looks like an interesting group of people and topics, so I suppose I shall posit a discussion which has been on my mind tonight.

I should immediately define what I mean by "free software" in the thread title so as to avoid confusion. I do not mean the definition given by the Free Software Foundation (http://gnu.mirror.widexs.nl/philosophy/free-sw.html) in which the software is open-source and customizeable. I mean it in the more pedestrian sense: software that can be legally obtained without charge. Of course, this definition does not exclude the "free as in speech" software, it merely encompasses all that is "free as in beer."

The question I mean to raise is inspired by forum owner David Watanabe. Those Mac users amongst you are likely familiar with Acquisition (http://www.acquisitionx.com/) and NewsFire (http://www.newsfirerss.com/). NewsFire is presently distributed gratis. Acquisition can be downloaded without charge without any real limitations, ads, or spyware. It seems the only difference between that and the registered program is the opening nag screen, which is easily dismissed. Therefore, most people who register are likely doing so not out of obligation or annoyance but rather donation. The business model seems to rely on customers being so impressed by the quality of the application and the generosity of its creator that they decide to send him some payment.

This does not act on the normal shareware model which generally attempts to do one (or more) of the following:


Annoy the user through incessant nagging until they register.
Compensate for free distribution by use of advertisements unless they register.
Charge others to bundle their software with your application (frequently spyware).
Impose a time limit after which the application no longer functions.
Limit functionality ("cripple" the app; for instance, disabling the save functionality) so that it is not very useful without being registered. This is essentially the same as selling the app directly, but providing a crippled "demo" is clever way to whet people's appetities.

Instead, the author puts his income in the hands of the milk of human kindness. The only real pressure to buy comes from the user's guilt in using something for free when the creator humbly requests compensation, a fact which the user is reminded of every time he opens the application. Large scale free products such as Apache or Linux and BSD distributions tend to receive donation funding which pays their bandwidth costs and even some of the higher-up management. But do popular, nag-free one-man apps such as DC++ get a sizeable return?

I appeal to the other members of this forum. If anyone here has experience developing software and then releasing it to the public without charge, have you been satisfied by the financial return? Did you ever regret releasing it for free afterwards and wish you had milked money out of using more "traditional" methods such as shareware or straight-up sales?

To the rest of you, if you had an idea for an application, how "free" would you make it? Is the "freedom" of an app an inverse property to the profits incurred? Furthermore, if one's application is popular enough that the donation system works, why not go all the way and make it completely free by opening the source, removing the nag intro, etc.?

What Porfiry (David) has mentioned before is something along the lines of what donations he receives pretty much covers the cost of running and a drink or two at a bar. (You have to note this isn't a direct quote, just interpretation of some other posts where he's mentioned the finances through donation)

I feel that with software thats donation based, you will always find that an organisation (since it's normally that more than a corporate) generates the "Free" and "Registered" versions just to incourage donations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However this means that there has to be some sizable/noticable differences between the version to purely make people feel as if it was worth donating to.

Removing a nag screen might not seem much, but as mentioned above it is a visable difference, even if it doesn't actually grant any extra functionality.

also it should be noted that with donation systems and Software developers, they aren't usually developing just one program, so what they receive in donations aids towards future development projects.

We have also seen the "Registered" version called the "Pro" version at times (e.g. QuickTime). In the case of QuickTime, the Pro version does offer some functionality that could be deemed "advanced" instead of merely "standard." Assuming most users use the QuickTime Player for playback of movies and music only, I could see why the encoding functionality could be considered "advanced," as it is essentially altering the business purpose of the app from one of playback to a creative tool. However, QuickTime Pro also does offer at least one playback-related feature (full-screen comes to mind), and in this way the standard free QuickTime could be seen as "crippled." Furthermore, purchasing Pro removes the opening nag screen from QuickTime.

Perhaps you are right, and the nag screen is more effective than I thought. And in earnest, I do find myself often annoyed at nag screens to the point I might curse the author of the program, irrational as that may be. If I really enjoy the software, the nag screen gives me guilt and I briefly consider buying it. Whether I buy it usually depends largely on my own personal wealth at the moment, and whether I feel like the author respects me enough that I should respect him through payment. If I don't enjoy the software terribly, the nag screen gives me annoyance. It seems as if most view nag screens as unprofessional, which is perhaps why people might resent QuickTime's nag screen more than an independent developer's.

I registered Acquisition. I probably did so only because I was inspired by the nag screen, now that I think of it. I have used many quality "free software" applications without donating a dime, but a quality shareware app generally does incite payment, probably because the author is regularly reminding you he'd like it. Psychologically, it also allows us to feel like we've done our share by giving us a precise amount to pay. In regular donations, we might not feel satisfied if we send them only $10; if the author asks for $10 to register software, though, we can feel perfectly satisfied with that amount.