Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!chuq From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Is a Shareware license enforceable? Message-ID: <3087@sun.uucp> Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 22:32:20 EST Article-I.D.: sun.3087 Posted: Sat Dec 21 22:32:20 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 00:26:43 EST References: <27@decwrl.UUCP> <1103@arthur.purdue.UUCP> Organization: Sun Micro -- NFS Consulting Group Lines: 72 >> ... If the Encyclopedia Britanica people were to send you a copy of >> their encyclopedia for a 30 day free trial, and [you have not asked for >> such a trial], you are not obligated to pay for the encyclopedia. [emphasis mine] > My understanding of unsolicited merchandise is that I have the right >to mark it "refused" and return it unopened without paying any postage, not >that I can keep it forever without paying for it. Steve, you missed a major clause here. The Postal Code is quite clear: If you receive a package THAT YOU DID NOT ORDER, you are welcome to keep the merchandise with no financial obligation. This, of course, has nothing to do with a 30 day free trial, because a 30 day free trial assumes that you've contracted with the company to purchase a product and the company has agreed to cancel that contract at your wish in the first 30 days. If you don't open it and mark it refused, you aren't liable for any cost or any postage. If you do open it, you are usually required to fund return postage, and the return agreement is whatever is in the contract involved. > > Is a Shareware License Enforceable? Neither of these cases has anything to do with Shareware, either. A shareware license restriction MIGHT be enforceable under copyright law. If I copyright the work I can control how that work is used. A good argument would be made, however, that the form of distribution puts it into the public domain because the author has relinquished control of the distribution. My personal opinion is that shareware is in the public domain, and that any requirement to pay is a moral one, not a legal one. In other words, you get the software and the author gets what you think its worth. The author, regardless of the words on the software, has relinquished control of the distribution and has published it as though it were public domain software. On the face of it, then, it IS public domain. This is complicated in a number of areas though: o What do you do is a shareware author 'worms' the software so that it becomes worthless if you don't register is? (Does anyone know of a case of this, by the way?) o What is the legality of taking a 'shareware' and reselling it (with or without credit) for personal gain? o There is the whole problem of removing credit from a piece of work, too. I don't think Shareware has a leg to stand on, legally. I think the power of shareware is the moral argument. "I put a lot of work into this. If you like it, help me defer the cost of that work" goes a long way. We won't know for sure until there is some tort in a court, and I doubt that shareware is going to be sued over any time soon... chuq [editorial postscript on worms: Worms, and any destructive copy protection scheme, is something for which the author should be shot on site. This goes, not only for Shareware software, but for all software from the Apple MacPascal 100 click monstrosity on down. If you find something with a worm in it, I suggest the following: o throw out the software (return it for refund LOUDLY if you paid for it) o yell to as many people as possible about it. o throw out the programmer, his machine, and toss a couple of bricks after him. ] -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq Power ennobles. Absolute power ennobles absolutely.