Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13418 comp.sys.misc:1006 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10845 comp.sys.mac:11305
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Shareware & Honesty (Was: Software (and other kinds of) cop
Message-ID: <6717@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 26 Jan 88 07:12:03 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <39450@sun.uucp> <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <2690@cup.portal.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 70

In article <2690@cup.portal.com> Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes:
<learn@igloo.UUCP writes:
<->(Discussion of the "honesty" of using shareware without paying for it,
<->including an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for
<->the word.)
<The OED isn't much use here, it's primarily an historical work.  Anyway
<dictionaries don't define language, they just record how people use it.

That's O_A_D, not E - the Oxford American Dictionary. As for the rest
of it, you apparently want words to mean what you say they mean. Fine,
so long as I have the same privilege :-).

<You mean, "if I continue to use the product without paying".  Well,
<you certainly haven't lied to anyone, but many people would say you're
<being dishonest (or at least "dishonorable", a related word) in
<taking advantage of someone else's effort without recompensing them.

You're the only person I've run into who'd say "dishonest." Immoral,
unethical, and slime, yeah - lots of those. Since those things usually
imply dishonorable, some of those, too.

<You're overextending a concept here.  If I give you a physical thing
<(like a pencil stamped "Vote for Isaac!"), you don't have to give it
<back.  But software isn't just a magnetized disk, it's an intellecutal
<property, like a copyrighted book.

Hold on - if somebody gives me property (whether it's "intellectual"
or otherwise), then it's mine. The only right that I don't have when
it's intellectual property is the right to create copies to give to
other people. Of course, if I can clone BMWs, it's not clear whether I
can give the clones away.  Given the current laws, probably not
(especially after the lawyers at BMW get through with me).

<But back to the point:  do you find shareware less disgusting than the normal
<means of distribution?

Slightly. The shareware is taking a free ride on the freeware
distribution channels. Software hoarders doesn't do that.

<The shareware customer also gets a free trial period.  That benefit
<alone, I think, outweighs psychic damage he suffer from accusations
<of dishonesty.  If I look at my shelves and total up the cost of
<retail software I wish I could have *used* before I had to make the
<purchase decision, and I come to a *lot* of dollars, more than
<my hardware cost!

You mean you don't deal with people who will let you return the
software if it's a dog? I do. Of course, this requires building a
working relationship with the dealer so he trusts you. On the other
hand, you get feedback on the quality of software before you buy it,
help with it if you have problems, and a reasonable channel for
reporting bugs.

<None of which means that shareware is gonna work.  Relies too much
<on people's honesty.

No, not on honesty. On their ethics matching yours. And it does work,
in some cases. But only in those cases where the person doing the
shareware has produced a product of commercial quality, and "sold" it
at significantly less than commercial prices. But the latter is only
possible because they shareware auther gets a free ride on the
freeware channels (thus taking advantage of the efforts of the people
running those channels without recompensing them).

	<mike
--
Look at my hopes,					Mike Meyer
Look at my dreams.					mwm@berkeley.edu
The currency we've spent,				ucbvax!mwm
I love you. You pay my rent.				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET