Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!davis
From: davis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Commercial software in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Message-ID: <2059@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 89 02:26:28 GMT
References: <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu
Reply-To: davis@ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis)
Organization: UR Dept. of Electrical Engg, Rochester NY 14627
Lines: 17


In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>     Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit?

NO.  Only the legal benefits count.

I think this unambiguously draws the line between two variants of
"shareware", one that should be posted, the other not.

If it is illegal to use it without paying, it is really not shareware, but a
commercial product, and should be treated as such.


Someone else objected to posting old versions of commercial programs.  If
the old version is really useful, as it would be if formerly sold
commercially, and its publisher releases it to free use by all, it should be
posted.