Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Public Domain, Shareware, etc. Message-ID: Date: 27 Jul 90 18:27:56 GMT References: <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 68 In-Reply-To: magnus@THEP.LU.SE's message of 27 Jul 90 08:51:13 GMT In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: I'm looking for definitions of the various distribution forms for "free" software. As far as I've understood, the definitions are as follows: Someone's at this again??? Public Domain: The software is totally 'public'; you may do almost what you like with it - modify it, give it away - as long as you don't sell it opr try to pass it off as your own. Not quite right. Public Domain has legal meaning. If you label your software as public domain, that meaning applies. For the US, what you've got is right, except that it's perfectly legal to sell PD software. Claiming that it's yours is unethical, and can be construed to be fraud. I don't believe it's explicitly illegal, though. Freeware: The software is copyrighted but given away for free. You're not allowed to distribute modified versions. Most people use "freeware" to mean any software that doesn't have monetary strings attached. This includes public domain, but also the GNU software and other things that allow for the distribution of modified versions. Shareware: The software isn't free, but may be distributed freely. Once you've tried it out and decided to keep it, you have to pay. This definition contains a contradiction. If it isn't free, how did I get a copy to distribute freely, and how do the people who I give it to manage to do so other than freely? Just bad wording on your part, I suspect. It's not clear that there's any legal requirement that you pay for shareware, so "have to" is a bit strong on the wording. Also, some software comes with requests - rather than threats of legal action - and is called "shareware" by it's authors, so that wording should be changed to include this. Does everybody agree that these are reasonable definitions? No. In the US, the first one is wrong. The second one doesn't include much copyrighted software which is released with permission to modify and redistribute code for noncommercial uses, and the third has some wording problems. Am I permitted to take a PD program, modify it, and use it as a part of a commercial program? With the definition of PD recognized in the US legal system,of course you are. You're even permitted to sell it back to the people who paid for it's development in the first place. Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you don't *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do so)? The distinction is perhaps an academic one; I suppose lots of people keep shareware without paying, but there's still a difference. Until it's proven that you *have* to pay for any shareware, the distinction seems to be moot. I sometimes refer to the stuff that says you have to pay as "threatware" or "idiotware", though the latter is usually reserved for software that contains things like "This code is in the public domain, and not for commercial use."