Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <15166@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 13 Feb 90 18:26:24 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> <17923@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 23

In article <17923@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>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.

Quite right, although it doesn't necessarily have to be unwitting.  An
institution (large, like MIT, or small, like me) can decide that the
benefits to THEM of receiving and passing on shareware outweigh the
costs.  Institutional networks exist for the convenience of their
consitituents, who may be happy to see shareware offerings arrive.

But the basic point is valid, and that's why all commercial product
distribution should be booted out of the core hierarchies.  Just because
some folks find it useful doesn't mean it should pollute the
noncommercial net core.

There is plenty of vigorous opportunity for expansion to new hierarchies
transmitted among consenting institutions.  The marketplace will enforce
survival there.  But the noncommercial core should be preserved.

I have seen zero followups along these lines of argument from the folks
nattering endlessly about copyrights and such, so I assume the point is
accepted.  If so, the policy issue is decided and we're down to chatter.