Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <6203@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 18 Mar 89 05:40:55 GMT
References: <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2967@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 35

In article <2967@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>If a shareware program is useful to lots of
>readers, then I think it is OK to post, even if it's a must-pay program.

How do we measure demand for a shareware program?  Do we count how many
people want to use it in accordance with copyright law?  Or do we count
the total number of people who want to use it, whether legally or
illegally?

My feeling is that no matter how many people want to use a program
illegally, that *cannot* be considered a factor in favor of posting the
program.  We must *only* count those people who want to use the program
in accordance with copyright law.  And my contention is that if payment
is legally required, that number becomes infinitesimally small and no
longer justifies posting that program.

To consider real numbers:

Program A requests payment but does not require it.  1,000 people use
it.  It is a high-demand program, because 1,000 people use it without
violating copyright law.  It should be posted.

Program B legally requires payment for continued use.  1,000 people use
it.  10 pay.  It is *not* a high-demand program, because illegal use
cannot be counted for this purpose, only legal use.  It should not
be posted.

Program C legally requires payment for continued use.  1,000 people use
it.  900 pay.  It *is* a high-demand program, because there are a large
number of legal users.  It should be posted.

But program C does not exist in reality.  Only A and B do.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu