Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ukma!sean
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <13946@s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 02:25:43 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> <1201@utoday.UUCP>
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 68

greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:

|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."

Then that would be copyright infringement, which is a pretty clear
cut issue. I do not advocate theft of anything, which make most
of the rest of your posting completely irrelevant.


|Doesn't the author of the program have *any* rights at all insofar as you
|are concerned with regard to their program being posted?

Yes, a user has all the rights that a copyright grants. That is, the
author has the right to limit the duplication of his work.

What the author probably does not have the right to do, and I
personally believe that he does not, is bind the user to a "license"
that he never signs or indeed might never see.



|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.

Lotus' license agreements have nothing to do with the various lawsuits
they've filed. All of them have been for copyright infringement. Although
without a contract, Lotus can't dictate what is done with a legally owned
copy of their software, copyright law says they do have the right to
limit duplication of those copies.

A networked piece of software, for example, is necessarily copied 
from disk into memory when it is used. Copyright law allows a software
author to limit that copying to one instance at a time. This is a copying
issue, not a use issue.


|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.

The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to
bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that
you do, then we have a difference of opinion.

I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then
demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the
sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights
of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's
a con, a scam, and I don't like it.

If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support
and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which
they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced
functionality and human help by paying for it.

Sean
-- 
***  Sean Casey          sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean
***  "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism
***  in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there
***  is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP