Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!apollo.hp.com!geiser From: geiser@apollo.HP.COM (Wayne Geiser) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware Keywords: UseNet forcing Message-ID: <481c2e2a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 18 Jan 90 15:25:00 GMT References: <2351@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> <17608@rpp386.cactus.org> Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Reply-To: geiser@apollo.HP.COM (Wayne Geiser) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA Lines: 31 I find it interesting that in this entire discussion, everyone seems to believe that the money being spent on commercial software or the money being sent to the shareware author is payment for the software. As it has been explained to me (in print and by those of the legal profession), one does not generally BUY software. In nearly all cases, one LICENSES software. That's why Microsoft, for example, can tell you not to give your old disks to anyone else when you order an upgrade to one of their products. If you actually BOUGHT the software, they would have absolutely no right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your PURCHASE. I view shareware as offering a user a free license for a "short period" of time in order to determine its usefulness. Sometimes this "short period" is well defined (e.g. 30 days), others leave it up to the user to determine how much time he or she needs to make that determination. If you decide that the software is of use to you, you are then requested to send in your license fee. I used "requested" in the previous sentence to stay out of the mess of whether or not there is an obligation to send in license fees. I have my own beliefs but do not have enough legal knowlege to defend them at this time. (I know, when did that matter on Usenet? :-)) Note that this works much like time-shifting on VCRs. Some believe that that means that you tape a show for view later on that week (or so). Others would argue that viewing their copy 50 times over 5 years following the taping is still considered time-shifting. Wayne Geiser Apollo Computer, Inc. - A subsidiary of Hewlett Packard {mit-erl, yale, uw-beaver, decvax}!apollo!geiser