Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!ll-xn!olsen
From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (olsen)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Summary: shareware demands are of dubious legal validity
Message-ID: <1317@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Date: 21 Mar 89 04:46:31 GMT
References: <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2967@looking.UUCP> <6203@bsu-cs.UUCP> <2971@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Lines: 18

I really can't see how shareware authors can issue a legally valid demand
for money from users, at least in the USA.  A US copyright holder has an
exclusive right to copy, distribute, modify, and perform the copyrighted
work.  He has no other control over the use of a legally-made copy.

Because of this, software distributors usually seek to execute a license
agreement with the user, restricting his use of the software.  With large
programs they actually do it right: getting the user's signature on a
license document.  With small programs, they pretend that opening the
'shink-wrap' executes a license agreement.  With shareware, how can
a software distributor bind the user?

A comparison between shareware and GNU freeware is instructive.  The GNU
license controls copying and distribution, but allows unrestricted use.
Restrictive shareware seeks to control use, while allowing unrestricted
copying and distribution.  Since copyright confers control of copying and
distribution, but not use, the GNU license is probably valid, while
shareware demands are very questionable.