Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stc!pete
From: pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware
Summary: Kendell adds his 2p worth
Message-ID: <2706@arran.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Date: 12 Jan 90 19:13:07 GMT
References: <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> <N7..ACxds13@ficc.uu.net> <17608@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
Followup-To: comp.sources.d
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
Lines: 46

As I started this debate, I'd like to add a few thoughts and maybe clarify
my original posting.

    - It's a pity this had to degenerate to name-calling. Perhaps it was
      inevitable, given that it's an ethical/moral issue.

    - It seems to be clear that (mostly) people don't pay shareware fees.
      (someone once posted a package with a request for a picture
       postcard from anyone who used it - cute). 

    - Someone suggested that the actual cost per kilobyte of USENET postings
      was low, as most traffic was carried over the internet or by UUCP over
      local connections. This may well be true in the USA (although it ignores
      the overheads involved. Think of all that disk space and cpu time. It
      all comes out of capital depreciation and maintenance costs) but it
      is not true for the rest of the world. Despite the privatisation of
      British Telecom ( :-) ), local calls still cost money here and, I 
      believe, in other European countries. And there's the transatlantic
      shipping cost.

    - I mentioned Larry Wall and the FSF as providers of good software for
      free. The question, why don't these guys impose charges?, was 
      rhetorical, but thanks anyway Larry.

    - I have posted software myself, in a minor sort of way. I would not
      have done so had I not had the example of others to follow.

    - I mentioned British law. I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer who knows
      his rights, but I should have said *English* law. I've no idea what
      the situation is in Scotland.

    - I shall not be using newsclip - it's safe in its shrinkwrap. 

    - It's possible to say that I'm not *forced* to take any newsgroup,
      and so it's up to me whether I collect material from my newsfeed.
      True, but unhelpful when material I don't want appears in a newsgroup
      that I do want. Does the net need alt.shareware? Or should newsclip
      have been announced in comp.newprod rather than being posted?

    - And lastly. Where did the term shareware come from? What is being
      shared (that isn't being shared by PD distribution)? Is it too late
      for me to put an ad in the Times - "Make me rich - send me ten pounds"?

    Cheers,

	Peter