Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> Date: 5 Feb 90 18:36:15 GMT References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY Lines: 75 bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: |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? I don't think shareware is impossible, or even a bad idea. If you want to sell support or documentation, or request donations, that's great. If you want to con me into paying money for it, or attempt to use guilt trips on me, then, no, I do not desire that. |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. Most shareware, just like most general software, doesn't benefit many people. Ninety percent of everything is crud. Good shareware is very beneficial. There's even more public domain and freely redistributable copyrighted software that's beneficial. Try before you buy is nice, but you see I don't have to buy because I already own it. |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. It's just like getting a shrink wrap book in the mail. No matter how big and bright the letters are that say "If you read past chapter one, you must pay", there is no contract, and you really don't have to pay. As a matter of fact, the Post Office would vigorously prosecute the perpetrators of such a scam. If you willingly post your copy to Usenet, or passively allow it to be posted with no contest, then every single solitary soul that recieves a copy OWNS that copy. They can execute it, make archival copies, put that copy on the space shuttle, make a T-shirt out of it, or even sell their copy. The program is your intellectual property, but you do NOT have the right to say what people do with legitimately obtained copies of that property unless there is a previous contract. All you can do is limit copying and exhibition. |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? It doesn't matter if I have to stand on one leg and juggle bananas to make it work. You'll find that the steps involved in making it usable do not violate copyright law nor do they constitute any sort of agreement. That's why shrink wrap "licenses" aren't binding. They're not a license at all, because there is no prior contract. 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