Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!ll-xn!olsen
From: olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware
Summary: It's like paying for Public TV
Message-ID: <1659@xn.LL.MIT.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 90 20:52:34 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> <1361@key.COM> <1990Jan9.212923.917@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM>
Reply-To: olsen@xn.ll.mit.edu (Jim Olsen)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Lines: 21

Are shareware users obliged to pay the authors?  Legally: no.  Morally: yes,
in a way.

Legally, shareware 'licenses' aren't worth the (virtual) paper they're
written on.  Copyright doesn't include the right to control the use of a
legally-made copy of a program, so the user needs no 'license', and
needn't pay for one.

For the moral obligation, we in the U.S. have a close parallel to
shareware: Public Television.  Public TV subsists primarily on voluntary
contributions.  It uses, without paying for them, highly valuable sections
of the radio spectrum to broadcast its programs and its appeals for money.
Even those who think Public TV is worthless are compelled to let them use
this valuable public resource.

Are Public TV viewers morally obliged to contribute?  I submit that this
is equivalent the question: 'Are shareware users morally obliged to pay
the authors?'  If no one pays, the product will die out (if you think that
would be a good thing, don't pay!).  If other people pay and you don't,
but you still use the new programs they finance, you are freeloading.
Freeloading is not as bad as theft, but it's not nice.