Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!dalenber
From: dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <13519@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 90 00:28:18 GMT
References: <1236@utoday.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 38

In article <1236@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
> Okey doke, then you have no problem using copies of Lotus 123 that find their
> way onto your computer, eh?  

Well, if I had a PC, and discovered that one of my friends has put a copy
of Lotus 123 on my hard disk illegally, then I would delete it and ask my
friend not to do it again.

But, if I had a copy of Lotus 123 with one of those stupid licenses that
said that I could only use it on a single CPU, I'd feel no guilt at
using it on another PC. It's my copy of Lotus, and I can use it where I
want to use it.

But I'm not following their ridiculous license (which I never agreed to
in the first place), so I'm obviously unethical.

>>A license is a contract.  Once you have given me the software by sending
>>it out on a public network, you are unable to force me to agree to the
>>terms of the contract.  Others have suggested analogies to the postal
>>system.  I didn't ask for it, and now I am free to do with it as I please.
> 
> Alright then, ask a friend of your to post Lotus to the net.  Now, you
> take it and start freely distributing it around.  Now, tell your management
> what you are doing.  I'm sure they'll see it the same way as you do.

There is a big difference between a copyright owner sending out legal copies
of their work and a random person sending out illegal copies of that same
work.  But if Lotus 123 was posted to Usenet by it's copyright owners, even
with a "shareware license", I would consider the copy I received to be mine;
free and clear.


Russel Dalenberg

att!ihlpb!dalenber
dalenber@ihlpb.att.com

Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not AT&T's