Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ll-xn!oberon!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc
Subject: Re: Guidelines on legal protection for shareware & freeware
Message-ID: <6648@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 2 Feb 88 05:31:29 GMT
References: <6784@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6606@oberon.USC.EDU> <6818@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: nobody@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 70

In article <6818@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>[I'm still trying to point followups to comp.sys.misc...]
>
>In article <6606@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
><After reading the message, I was kind of puzzled.  Mike, a known "hater" of
><shareware, giving guidelines on how to protect shareware and help make
><money off it?  Strange!  But after reading the licensing notice he suggests
><including in the shareware program:
>
>I expected that. That someone would share information with those who
>oppose them is - by it's very nature - hard for people who like
>^^^^^^                                                     ^^^^
>shareware to understand.

I really cannot say that I like shareware or DON'T like shareware.  I do use
some shareware programs on the IBM PC and only paid something if I got some
else in return (manual, tech. support).  I don't use any shareware programs
on the Amiga, but do use a lot of PD stuff of VERY HIGH quality (I did use
Mg1b for a while, but then switched to MicroEmacs).

I also do not feel I was trying to "oppose" you.  Just basically trying to
give some advice as you were doing on a subject totally untested by the courts.
(which means anybody's idea is as good as anybody's else, lawyers or 
non-layers).

>And yes, I asked the lawyer about the mail & shrinkwrap
>analogies, and got told "they don't apply."

On the same question, a software lawyer I consulted said, "Who knows? Wait
until somebody sues."

><Also including the LICENSE file as part of a library ARC file
><that contains the executable won't do any good, since NOBODY will be able
><to prove that I read the agremeent BEFORE I use the program.

>There's a key point you seem to have missed - the license agreement
>allows you to use the program without having to register. It provides
>for a "trial period." Though you may not be able to collect damages in
>that case, you can force the user to either register or stop using the
>program.           ^^^^^

Clearly nobody CAN FORCE me to stop using the program after the "trial" period.
Would the shareware author get a court order to come to my house and erase
the program?  That would never happen in today's "privacy-oriented" society.

The point I am trying to make is that even in the event that such an act
(continue to use the  software  after the trial period)  was indeed considered
illegal by the courts (and currently there is no proof or disproof that it 
will) the problem of "enforceability" would make the whole discussion academic.

>You've pointed out at least two problems - I need to make it clear
>that this is untested in a court, and to state explicitly that not
>having a real license agreement lessens the enforceability of the
>         ^^^^
>shareware agreement.

That's the point.  We are not taking about a "real" license agreement, but
some "new, untested, possibly invalid, contract".

>Note: since Marco dropped the copyright notice (naughty, naughty), the
>parts of the posting I had originally copyrighted that he posted are
>now more trouble to copyright than it takes. They may be considered to
>be in the public domain.

Sorry, my mistake.  I read your "copy request" by the letter, and forgot
about the copyright notice.  In any case, I think one does NOT loses his/her
copyright because of someone else's mistake, so I think your copyright is
still valid, more so since only a portion of the original was quoted.

-- Marco