Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware Message-ID: <17608@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 10 Jan 90 05:27:38 GMT References: <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 50 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Jef, I'm afraid your analysis of shareware is both simplistic and >deceptive. IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION. >You're right about one thing: you are under no legal or ethical >obligation to pay for software that arrives through broadcast >channels such as Usenet, Bulletin Board systems, and publicly >redistributable disk libraries. However, it is in your self- >interest to do so, since it provides an incentive for people who >write the programs you use to improve on them. You may also find >them more likely to support you with little problems if they have >a check from you in their bank account. This is not an unquestionable truth. There is some shareware which might be worth money. There is much shareware that is not worth money, and being forced to transport some program which falls far short of being a commercial offering should be a criminal act, in the full legal sense of the word criminal. I prefer to argue that providing =free= software on the net encourages other programmers to do likewise, which directly benefits us all by increasing the amount of free software which is available for use on our systems. >So, don't worry. I'm not calling you scum. I just think you're a >little short-sighted. No, Jef doesn't share =your= vision. This is not "USENET According to Peter da Silva". >As for your diatribe against shareware authors, though, it's a >bit out of line. Any transaction that provides percieved value to >both sides is ethically and morally sound. And that includes >receiving a shareware package over a public channel. It's only perceived value, and at a cost which the site owner was =coerced= to pay. The owner of the site didn't have the option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the issue. Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple. Ultimately the value of a piece of software is the number of dollars someone is willing to pay for it. If shareware authors aren't receiving money for their programs it only means one thing. The software isn't worth a dime. And I'd prefer they didn't cost me money by posting it and begging for money. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org