Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cunews!dfs From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: (Long) Answer to Question of .net ethics Keywords: Summary of shareware responses Message-ID: Date: 9 Oct 90 14:42:30 GMT Sender: news@ccs.carleton.ca (news) Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 68 Last week, I asked what the .net policy on "shareware" was. I only got 8 replies. Everyone condemned "shareware" - ie, no-one is willing to be "forced" to register a program to continue using it. Most people didn't mind "beggarware" - ie, a request for a voluntary donation. However, they didn't think anyone would get rich on this. Everyone agreed that the best option is "freeware" - software with no strings attached. Sample responses: From jpn@genrad.com (John Nelson) >The copyright holder cannot restrict the USE of something which an >end-user has obtained via a method approved by the copyright holder. >In other words, once you have agreed to distribute your program via >USENET, you have no right to charge anyone for it's USE. From mccall!tp@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Terry Poot) (Re registration -dfs) >NO. This is slimy. I personally treat any such thing as though the >terms were as mentioned in the next paragraph. If I didn't ask for it, >and you send it to me, it's MINE. I'll respect copyright, but the copy >I have is mine to do with as I wish, because I didn't ask for it and >didn't agree to any terms. From pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) >In my opinion it is not ethical to post commercial or pseudo-commercial >software over the net, using the alt., comp., distributions. There is a biz. >distribution for commercial material. If I, as a leaf node paying my own >private phone bill to collect news from my upstream site (sorry to mix >metaphors here) receive so-called 'shareware' in a newsgroup where it is >customary to post only public domain, free, software, my attitude is the >same as if I receive, unsolicited, a book from a publisher on a sale or >return basis, with no postage prepaid (so that I have to pay the postage). I >will still respect any copyright in the work, so I won't give copies to >all and sundry, but, if after asking the publisher to collect the book he >doesn't take it back, I'll feel free to use it myself. >I draw an important distinction here in the matter of choice. If I log in to >a BBS, see a nice piece of software there, clearly labelled as shareware, >e.g. Procomm, and download it then I think it's reasonable for me to pay the >licence fee asked, even though I've had to pay to download it (analogous to >paying a bus fare to go to a shop). But if I have no choice in whether I >download it or not, because it's embedded in a channel where I reasonably >expect to find only free material, then I don't think it's reasonable. >Bear in mind that it costs the net community real money to distribute >postings. Some of it is private money, some of it is corporate money, some >of it is government money. But, if you use the net to distribute software >from which you hope to make money, then you're taking a free ride off other >people without asking them first in the expectation of profitting yourself. From: jon%vector0@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (A Product of Society) > We don't need no stinkin' summaries. :) Thanks to all who responded. -- David F. Skoll | Department of Electronics | Opinions expressed here are dfs@doe.carleton.ca | Carleton University | my own and not necessarily (613) 788-5771 | 5772 | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | those of my employer.