Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!ejd
From: ejd@caen.engin.umich.edu (Edward J Driscoll)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <422a5d6a.b11a@falcon.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 89 01:02:00 GMT
References: <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ejd@caen.engin.umich.edu (Edward J Driscoll)
Organization: caen
Lines: 30

In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised.  Very briefly, the
>question is:
>
>     Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit?
>
>I'm not making a judgement here.  I'm asking a question.
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
>                    ARPA:  dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu

I fail to see how this will help you decide whether or not to post
a particular piece of software, as you have no way of knowing in
advance how many people will use it illegally (or legally, for that
matter).  I don't believe that answers to this question will
provide you with a practical decision-making mechanism.

I can see merit in both sides of this debate, but I think
it is important to propose plans which (1) protect the net
and its users and administrators from legal hassles and
liabilities, and (2) provide the moderator with a *precise*
set of criteria.  Rahul's original proposal (anything which
legally requires payment at some point) is precise.  Proposals
about relative demand and utility are vague and discretionary,
and I would reject them on those grounds alone, were I the
moderator (thank heavens I'm not).
-- 
Ed Driscoll
The University of Michigan
ejd@caen.engin.umich.edu