Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!watmath!bstempleton From: bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> Date: 5 Feb 90 06:56:41 GMT References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> Reply-To: bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 31 If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership of a copy, then what are the consequences of this? Which lawyer said this, anyway? The consequence would be that shareware in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire? Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal. Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal more than the author. After all, one of the whole ideas behind shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets passed on to the customer. With no try-before-you-buy. I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software than posting to a BBS or Compuserve. Why? For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used. It wasn't in a usable form, much like most USENET postings. You have to go to some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it again), compiling it and then using it. All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those other acts don't. Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as such, and contains english information that you can read without copying, unpacking etc. Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking is no different than anybody who downloads. Can you come up with an argument to the contrary? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473