Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <17923@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 13 Feb 90 13:54:12 GMT References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> <2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1990Feb11.164053.27668@robohack.UUCP> <1235@utoday.UUCP> Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service Lines: 69 In article <1235@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >>Copyright law protects an author from those who would make >>un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who >>would claim the work to be their own. > >Right. The "All Rights Reserved" clause means that all of the rights, >even those not specifically mentioned belong with the author. Now, the >author may make special consideration and permit persons to copy their >creation provided they follow certain guidelines. Could they restrict >a person who follows those guidelines because they don;t like the person, >or don;t like the person's politics? Probably not. But, unless you follow >whatever restrictions the author places on the copying of his or her >creation, then you are in violation of their Copy Right. USENET is not the same as the floppy distributors you are probably dealing with. When you post an article to USENET, you have caused it be copied onto every system on the network. You =can't= restrict it from being copied onto my machine, unless I tell you in advance I have no intention of complying and you monkey with the article header. The entire issue of the recipient having a legal copy is mute - you gave me the copy I have. The only thing left to argue is ownership and redistribution. I don't want to own it, and I don't plan on selling it to anyone else [ or if I plan on redistributing it, I plan on redistributing it according to the normal set of guidelines ] All that remains to argue is the license, and it isn't legally valid. >Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use. The software author >owns both and may grant them as they see fit. But, giving out blanket >rights on one does not give out blanket rights on the other. They are >unrelated with a common intersection only by the author's leave. Well, the license is invalid. There is a legal term for holding someone to an agreement based on some arbitrary action they took. The most common example is public parking - the "not liable no matter what" type statements are also invalid [ go ask in misc.legal ]. >Most shareware has a statement such as: "You may distribute this shareware >in its entirity, but not for commercial gain. If you wish to distribute >this software for any fee whatsoever, you must have written >permission to do so." > >This is merely a loosening of the "All Rights Reserved" clause. Fine, and that part of the =COPYRIGHT= is still valid. >Again, I can;t speak for all shareware authors. In my case, I encourage >as many people as possible to try my code out. If they like it, they'll >continue to use it. If they continue to use it, they'll make it a part >of their normal computing environment. When that occurs, I expect them to >pay my $10 registration fee. Presuming they legally obtained the copy, the =LICENSE= requiring them to send you the $10 is invalid. >What allows me to provide such code and such services for as little as I do >is the continued support of some of the ethical people out there. The >lack of support by those lacking in the ethics to adhere to my wishes causes >me to raise my price. And what allows others to distribute their shareware on USENET is the continued support of unwitting companies and unversities being required to be their distribution service. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org