Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13547 comp.sys.misc:1026 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10983 comp.sys.mac:11509 comp.sys.atari.st:7103
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!felix!john
From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Shareware & Honesty (Was: Software (and other kinds of) copying)
Message-ID: <19819@felix.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 88 00:15:25 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <39450@sun.uucp> <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 55

In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
><Note the general
><treatment of shareware: People get it for free (or for minimal effort)
><and very seldom do those who keep and use it ever pay *anything* for
><it.  Which, besides being unfair, is dishonest.
>
>Dishonest? Unfair? I'd suggest you look in a dictionary. For instance,
>the OAD says that dishonest is merely not honest, and that honest is:
>
>Now, someone *gives* me (or otherwise makes available at no cost) a
>piece of software. I haven't done anything dishonest so far. They then
>say "Give me money if you use this." I *still* haven't done anything
>dishonest.

Note above the original poster was quite specific when he mentioned
"those who keep and use..."
                    ^^^
>As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in
>the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You
>can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a
>prior agreement about such.

Most shareware comes with a usage agreement built in.  I don't know
if the agreements, or if all of them, are exactly legal, but the concept
of honesty is distinct from the concept of legal.  I can lie and be
dishonest without actually breaking any laws.

>Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are
>value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the
>same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral
>and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell
>them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it?
>Especially when in many cases someone else is willing to give you the
>something very similar without calling you names if you don't pay for
>it.

This is not the intended agreement behind shareware at all.  You are
expected to keep, and even distribute the thing with no strings attached.
If you use it beyond a trial period (I know, not specific), you are
"required" to pay for it or stop using it.  That seems reasonable and fair.
If someone else gives you a preferred substitute for free, then use it,
and no one is asking you to pay for the original.  Is this "concept" still
immoral to you?

The agreement is usually well specified within the software, and is probably
covered under the rule of acceptance-implies-agreement laws.  No one is
forcing you to use the stuff, or pay for it.

>	<mike

John Gilbert
--
John Gilbert
!trwrb!felix!john