Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!iuvax!mailrus!uunet!utoday!greenber From: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <1201@utoday.UUCP> Date: 1 Feb 90 22:57:01 GMT References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <13011@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3032@netxcom.DHL.COM> <13742@s.ms.uky.edu> <7146.25c595d1@dit.ie> <13912@s.ms.uky.edu> Reply-To: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY Lines: 61 In article <13912@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >I say the analogy is more like a a fishing rod being delivered to your >house. By US law, you're free to go fishing with it. I feel exactly the same >way about software delivered without a previous contract. > Although this is not the case, Sean, what would happen if my shareware package had a specific not in it: "Not to be distributed onto UseNet or InterNet by any means whatsoever." And, it appeared there. And, hence appeared on your local system. If I, the author of the package, was not the poster of the package, would you still feel that you have the moral right to use the software? Even though the author specifically prohibits it and specifically did not use the net by his own desire? Doesn't the author of the program have *any* rights at all insofar as you are concerned with regard to their program being posted? If the answer to that question is "No.", then I expect you'd have no problem with a copy of Lotus, for example, being distributed on the net. Nor would you have a problem with someone busting into your account on your machine, taking whatever proprietary stuff you have on that machine (even stuff that might belong to your employer and which you've signed non-discolsures on!) and distributing that on the net. So, then, if there is some moral reserve you'd have about using a pirate copy of Lotus (and what makes it "pirated"? The fact that you're using it against their license agreement, I guess), or about others using something that you consider proprietary to yourself, then what is the problem with adhereing to the wishes of another author, a commercial author (too), who has happened to distribute software in a different way than through Egghead software? I contend that, if you think that Lotus has the right to prohibit the usage of their software from being distributed *and*used* on the net (again, let's forget the legal implications) and would uphold a decision they might have to do whatever they could to prevent usage of the product against their license agreement, then shareware license agreements should be looked at in the same light. As for legalities: in NYC it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Some cretins still do it. What keeps the majority of people from spitting on the sidewalk? Two things: their own personal set of values as to what constitues proper behavior and what does not, and (potentially) the adverse views of others at their unruly and unsocial behavior. The fear of being arrested or getting a ticket does not enter into it. I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware, that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar, crass, anti-social, and disgusting. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"