Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!xanth!ukma!rutgers!cmcl2!phri!marob!manes
From: manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <592@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 89 09:52:38 GMT
References: <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: ESCC  New York City
Lines: 82

From article <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP>, by dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi):
> As moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc I am supposed to draw the line
> somewhere between what is suitable for posting and what is not.
> 
> I am intending to draw the line between commercial software and free
> software as follows:
> 
> Ok to post:       Software that does not impose a legal
>                   requirement on the user to pay for it.
> 
> Not OK to post:   Software that does impose a legal
>                   requirement on the user to pay for it.
> 
> Sample license (call this example A), not OK to post:
> 
>      "If you use this program beyond a trial period you are required 
>       to pay $x."
> 
> Sample license (example B), OK to post:
> 
>      "If you find this software useful, a payment of $x is requested."
> 

Sorry for the quoted info but it's poitenent.  Discussion has been
raging on this issue (among others) on the Association of Shareware
Professionals forum on CIS (I'm a member of ASP).  ASP represents many,
if not most, of the major Shareware authors, like Phil Katz (PKZIP), Bob
Wallace (PC-WRITE), Jim Button (PC-FILE, PC-CALC), Tom Smith (PROCOMM)
as well as licensed vendors of Shareware, like Nelson Ford's Public
Software Library. 

Basically, there is a move in ASP towards more affirmative wording for
Shareware "beg screens", not necesarily to the point of threatening
users with "30-day evaluation licenses" but eliminating the ambiguity of
statements about "contributions" and "eternal thanks" which do, to some
extent, leave a false impression with the user that the software is
something the author whipped up last year for the heck of it and, sure,
send me a few bucks if you get the urge.  Many ASP members' sole source
of income is from the Shareware and commercial licenses to their software.

Basically, the ASP ideal is that the user try the program for as long as
s/he needs to evaluate it and if s/he decides that it's of value it
should be registered.  Some members have taken the next logical step of
specifying the boundaries of a realistic "evaluation period" not for the
purposes of defining the expiration of a legal "license" but to remind a
user who continues to use the software after XX days/weeks that s/he
>should< have had enough time and experience with the software to make
an educated decision.  It's not the policy of ASP that users register on
the basis of whether or not they care to pay but on whether or not the
software adequately performs the job for which the user needs it.

I've not seen any Shareware programs that specify a legal license period
prior to registration but, then again, I'm not a Shareware maven.  Magpie,
my Shareware BBS for Xenix and DOS, will have a 45-day "evaluation period"
beginning with v1.3.  However, there's no implication that the user is
legally obligated to pay after it expires.  In fact, such a statement
would probably be held in violation of ASP policy (Nelson Ford's comment
on the matter was what if the Pope is trying out your software and
suddenly gets called out of town to confront the Red Army... should he
be required to pay if he returns after the evaluation period has expired?)

I'm unclear on how your policy applies here.  Certainly, all Shareware
is copyrighted and the policy of ASP is that regular users of a
Shareware program >should< register so there's an implied, albeit weak,
obligation on the regular user of member software to register regardless
of any defined "evaluation period".

If a Shareware program doesn't explicitly use the word "legal" in its
beg screen, is it kosher here? I'll upload your message to ASP and
return any comment here.  At any rate, I appreciate that you've
moderated your earlier postion against posting any software which
requests $$.

Oh, incidentally, there has also been discussion on ASP about getting a
license from you to allow members to distribute their software in SEZ
format.  I was blown away to see that you kept my name in the SEZ
banner! I'm still using one of the early beta copies we were tossing
back and forth in our Efficiency Warz (which you won).
-- 
Steve Manes            Roxy Recorders, Inc.             Magpie-HQ BBS
UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes              (212)420-0527
Smail: manes@MASA.COM