Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13678 comp.sys.misc:1053 comp.sys.ibm.pc:11124 comp.sys.mac:11663 comp.sys.atari.st:7165
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!umd5!purdue!gatech!udel!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!cadre!pitt!cisunx!ejkst
From: ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy)
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: <6376@cisunx.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 88 21:26:46 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <39450@sun.uucp> <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys
Lines: 57

In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (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.
 
 
[  unnecessary stuff deleted ]
 
> 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.
> 
> 	<mike
> --
> Estant assis, de nuit secrette estude,			Mike Meyer
> Seul, repose sur la selle d'airain,   			mwm@berkeley.edu
> Flambe exigue, sortant de solitude,   			ucbvax!mwm
> Fait proferer qui n'est a croire vain.			mwm@ucbjade.BITNET

I almost flamed this, then I almost ignored it.  But then I realized,
that for about 90% or more of all shareware that I have seen, I agree.
(ok, maybe I don't called it immoral and disgusting, but the idea is
there.)  

The difference in my view is that I feel a distiction must be made
between different 'classes', if you will, of shareware.  There are the
neat screen hacks,  directory commands with a twist, little foo-foo
utilities that we can all live quite nicely without.  The quickest way
to piss my off is to give me a neat little utility, something that
does something really nifty, or maybe does some little thing just the
way I wanted;  and then tell me "If you find this program useful, please
send $10 to..."  Usually these programs have a guilt message when you
run them.  If I get disgusted enough, it's enough reason to toss the
particular offender in the bit bucket.

On the other hand, there is a more elite class of shareware;  programs
that are in fact of commercial quality (yes I know that's ambiguous) or
are better than commercial programs that do the same, or are not as good
as program X, but do cost $25 instead of $200.  These programs are
legitimate shareware in my opinion, and I try to honor the authors request
and either pay for the program or don't use it.  Usually paying for
these programs is actually to your benefit, in the form of upgrades,
documentation, support, etc.  These include (in my opinion) Procomm, (at
least earlier; is it commercial now?)  PC-Write/file/calc/etc.,
Chiwrite, or for the Amiga, Uedit, Mcad, Dirmaster, and lots of others.

Maybe we should coin a new term for the former class...GreedWare?  B-)

Eric Kennedy
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP