Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!rex!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!mhuxo!mhuxu!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!sparks
From: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: New Communicational Morality (piracy)
Summary: Apples and Oranges
Keywords: software, copyright, society, piracy, sleeze
Message-ID: <564@corpane.UUCP>
Date: 21 Apr 89 14:00:59 GMT
References: <754@infovax.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de> <3687@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc., Louisville Ky
Lines: 54

<3112@looking.UUCP>

In article <3112@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> 
> Not just the amount of it, but the distribution of it as well.  What
> program is more widely distributed, Lotus 1-2-3 or PC-Calc, the
> shareware spreadsheet?
> 
> In fact, almost all the world's most widely used and distributed software
> packages are commercial, protected packages.  It is the packages with
> "free" distribution that are the most severely limited in distribution.

[note FD = Freely Distributable]
The reason commercial programs have a wider distribution is because of the 
following reasons:

1> Advertizing. FD programs are not advertized except by word of mouth.
Commercial Software (CS to make my typing easier) Companies have ads in every
magazine you look in. FD software is at most advertized in the back of a
magazine in a 'collection'.

2> Reputation. CS will sell if the company has a good 'rep' such as microsoft.
FD is less well known and suffers because of it. A lot of people equate how
much you pay for something to mean that is what it is worth. i.e. A spreadsheet
that costs $500 *HAS* to be better than one that is free.

3> Support. Since CS companies charge for their software, and CS has the 
support of an entire company behind it, they can give out fancier manuals,
flashier packages, and more bug fixes (which they charge you for as an
'upgrade'). 

In my experience (with my Amiga) the quality of the FD software has been
equal or better than most of the commercial software I have seen. This is
because the FD software is a work of love. The author writes it, not because he
expects to get rich, but because he *wants* to. 

So don't put down FD software. It's distribution may be smaller, but the
quality is there. The distribution is a property of the bucks the commercial
company puts into the 3 points (mostly number 1) above, not because it's 
copyrighted. Many freely distributed software is copyrighted also.

Also, don't take this message as an agreement with the first poster that
suggested that we give all software away, and have the government set up
a committee to write programs. Blech! No way! Remember, I said that writing
free software is a labor of love, not a labor of force. If a person wants to
write a program and give it away, then it has to be his choice, not the
governments.



-- 
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] |          sparks@corpane.UUCP         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 
A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a Unicorn.