Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!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: <15218@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 1 Mar 90 14:19:49 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 15

In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Sigh.  USENET is *NOT* public domain.  It's not even a public network.
>It is *not* noncommercial.  Saying it won't make it so.  I have, and have
>given, counterexamples.  Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty
>darn good way of disproving a thesis.  So stop saying it!

No, Brad has given examples of commercial ANNOUNCEMENTS, which are
specifically OK'd in the guidelines.  Red herring.

At issue is commercial DISTRIBUTION of product at the net's expense.
Whole different kettle of fish.  This distinction has been pointed out
in previous articles with no acknowledgement from Brad that I've seen.

The only commercial distribution on Usenet today is shareware, and shareware
on Usenet is WRONG -- that's the thesis.  Next case.