mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/22/88)
In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
<Note the general
<treatment of shareware: People get it for free (or for minimal effort)
<and very seldom do those who keep and use it ever pay *anything* for
<it. Which, besides being unfair, is dishonest.
Dishonest? Unfair? I'd suggest you look in a dictionary. For instance,
the OAD says that dishonest is merely not honest, and that honest is:
1) truthful, trustworthy
2) showing such qualities
3) got by fair means
Now, someone *gives* me (or otherwise makes available at no cost) a
piece of software. I haven't done anything dishonest so far. They then
say "Give me money if you use this." I *still* haven't done anything
dishonest.
As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in
the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You
can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a
prior agreement about such.
Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are
value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the
same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral
and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell
them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it?
Especially when in many cases someone else is willing to give you the
something very similar without calling you names if you don't pay for
it.
<mike
--
Estant assis, de nuit secrette estude, Mike Meyer
Seul, repose sur la selle d'airain, mwm@berkeley.edu
Flambe exigue, sortant de solitude, ucbvax!mwm
Fait proferer qui n'est a croire vain. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETbreck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) (01/22/88)
In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > > As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in > the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You > can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a > prior agreement about such. I think that the laws state that you can not be required to pay for unsolicited stuff that you get in the mail. But you do not get to keep the stuff. Of course, I'm not a lawyer. This is just what I've been led to understand by people who have received (for example) unsolicited magazine "trial subscriptions". > ... I find the very concept of shareware immoral > and disgusting. [Above taken grossly out of context] Fine. Don't use shareware. > Especially when in many cases someone else is willing to give you the > something very similar without calling you names if you don't pay for > it. Then there's no problem. Don't use the Shareware stuff. Just use the free programs that people are standing in line to let you (you wonderful guy you) use. Continue to sponge off the hard work of people around you. Continue to refuse to give payment for value received just because the person neglected to wait until your check cleared. Be a man and don't give in to the blatant extortion implicit in shareware. America will be proud of you for it. -- Breck Beatie {uunet,pyramid!weitek}!aimt!breck "Sloppy as hell Little Father. You've embarassed me no end."
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (01/23/88)
In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > <Note the general > <treatment of shareware: People get it for free (or for minimal effort) > <and very seldom do those who keep and use it ever pay *anything* for > <it. Which, besides being unfair, is dishonest. [ unnecessary stuff deleted ] > Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are > value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the > same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral > and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell > them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it? > Especially when in many cases someone else is willing to give you the > something very similar without calling you names if you don't pay for > it. > > <mike > -- > Estant assis, de nuit secrette estude, Mike Meyer > Seul, repose sur la selle d'airain, mwm@berkeley.edu > Flambe exigue, sortant de solitude, ucbvax!mwm > Fait proferer qui n'est a croire vain. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET I almost flamed this, then I almost ignored it. But then I realized, that for about 90% or more of all shareware that I have seen, I agree. (ok, maybe I don't called it immoral and disgusting, but the idea is there.) The difference in my view is that I feel a distiction must be made between different 'classes', if you will, of shareware. There are the neat screen hacks, directory commands with a twist, little foo-foo utilities that we can all live quite nicely without. The quickest way to piss my off is to give me a neat little utility, something that does something really nifty, or maybe does some little thing just the way I wanted; and then tell me "If you find this program useful, please send $10 to..." Usually these programs have a guilt message when you run them. If I get disgusted enough, it's enough reason to toss the particular offender in the bit bucket. On the other hand, there is a more elite class of shareware; programs that are in fact of commercial quality (yes I know that's ambiguous) or are better than commercial programs that do the same, or are not as good as program X, but do cost $25 instead of $200. These programs are legitimate shareware in my opinion, and I try to honor the authors request and either pay for the program or don't use it. Usually paying for these programs is actually to your benefit, in the form of upgrades, documentation, support, etc. These include (in my opinion) Procomm, (at least earlier; is it commercial now?) PC-Write/file/calc/etc., Chiwrite, or for the Amiga, Uedit, Mcad, Dirmaster, and lots of others. Maybe we should coin a new term for the former class...GreedWare? B-) Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/23/88)
In article <469@aimt.UUCP> breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) writes:
<In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, I wrote:
<> As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in
<> the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You
<> can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a
<> prior agreement about such.
<
<I think that the laws state that you can not be required to pay for unsolicited
<stuff that you get in the mail. But you do not get to keep the stuff.
<Of course, I'm not a lawyer. This is just what I've been led to understand
<by people who have received (for example) unsolicited magazine "trial
<subscriptions".
You mean they actually had to give the magazines back!? Somehow, I
doubt that. Of course, once the scam doesn't work, the publishers quit
sending them magazines.
<Just use the free programs that people are standing in line to let you
<(you wonderful guy you) use.
No, nobody stands in line - they just write the software for whatever
reasons they have (like they need the tool, or think it would be
educational, or ...), and don't feel like doing the extra work
required to turn it into a commercial product. So they drop it into
the PD distribution channels *without* trying to make a quick buck by
putting in a "send me money or you'll pay in the afterlife" message.
<Continue to sponge off the hard work of people around you.
Considering that some of that work is done using tools that I wrote &
gave away, I don't have any problem doing so. That the distribution
channels are funded in part with my dollars, and run on software and
hardware that I help maintain doesn't hurt any. I'm just collecting
the (indirect) fruits of my labors.
<Be a man and don't give in to the blatant extortion implicit in shareware.
Damn straight. But that's not really hard. Most of the stuff
distributed under the misnomer "shareware" isn't usable anyway. Or
isn't as good as *true* shareware - software that people share because
they want to, not because they hope to shame you into giving them
money.
<America will be proud of you for it.
Glad to know that someone appreciates my stand.
<mike
--
Teddies good friend has his two o'clock feast Mike Meyer
And he's making Teddies ex girl friend come mwm@berkeley.edu
They mistook Teddies good trust ucbvax!mwm
Just for proof that Teddy was dumb. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETrjung@nunki.usc.edu (Robert Alley Jung) (01/23/88)
Excuse me, but I always thought the idea of shareware was, "Here's a PD program I wrote, feel free to us it. But IF YOU CAN, send a donation. I don't demand that you do, but it would make me feel better." Whether you're a scumbag for getting shareware without sending a donation or not doesn't seem to be the question. Rather, what IS the nature of shareware? All the shareware software I've seen on the Ataris (PICSWITCH 0.7 on the ST and GAUNTLET on the 8-bits come to mind) seem to impose the "Money is nice, but not demanded" idea... --R.J., New netter with big mouth B-)
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/24/88)
in article <469@aimt.UUCP>, breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) says: > Xref: killer comp.sys.amiga:14114 comp.sys.misc:1089 comp.sys.ibm.pc:12546 comp.sys.mac:12485 comp.sys.atari.st:7324 > In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >> As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in >> the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You >> can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a >> prior agreement about such. > I think that the laws state that you can not be required to pay for unsolicited > stuff that you get in the mail. But you do not get to keep the stuff. > Of course, I'm not a lawyer. This is just what I've been led to understand > by people who have received (for example) unsolicited magazine "trial > subscriptions". You're wrong. One of my vices is reading the advice columns in the local rag, including the BBB & Legal Questions columns as well as the national ones. Over the past 10 years, the problem of getting something that you never ordered has been dealt with over and over again, and the answer is this: If you recieve something in the mail, and you didn't order it, congratulations. You are now the proud owner of a free gift! There is no obligation to send it back, or pay for it... although you may have an obligation to contact the vender and notify him that you did not order it, especially for things like magazine subscriptions. See the appropriate parts of the U.S. postal codes.... In general, the law works much like Mike mentioed... if it's free, someone can't come back and tell you later that it's NOT free. > Then there's no problem. Don't use the Shareware stuff. Just use the free > programs that people are standing in line to let you (you wonderful guy you) > use. Continue to sponge off the hard work of people around you. Continue > to refuse to give payment for value received just because the person neglected > to wait until your check cleared. Be a man and don't give in to the blatant > extortion implicit in shareware. America will be proud of you for it. Oh sure, real leach, huh? Mike Meyer has probably written more public domain software in a year than you've written in your entire life. He doesn't just stand in line to use other's software... he contributes, too. A friend here in Lafayette has a shareware program out that prints mailing labels in various fonts, with Print Shop graphics on them. He doesn't make random exhortations about "software leeches" or anything like that (for one thing, he's a gentleman, in all senses of the word, and doesn't do things of that sort). He doesn't ask for tons of money -- he already has a full-time job, and besides, the friggin' program prints mailing labels, it don't do dishes or anything else. Mostly, it's just a way for people to get the latest version for a donation of $10 or equivalent (for example, someone in Australia with access to a printing press sent him 500 beautiful diskette labels, gold-color, with the program's logo on them...). And, incidently, an excuse to get lots of mail from around the world (he probably spends more on stamps than he gets in donations :-}. Whenever I see something that asks for tons of money to use, I mostly chortle and toss it across the room into a growing pile of disks that one day I'll have to scavenge... there's very, very few things that I use often enough to pay for (like that mailing label program, for example, which I used so often that I finally sent the guy $15 -- which, now that I think of it, is about the only shareware that I've EVER used, since my main use for my computer is software development, and most development tools either cost money or are a quick "C" hack). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) (01/24/88)
In article <6665@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >No, nobody stands in line - they just write the software for whatever >reasons they have (like they need the tool, or think it would be >educational, or ...), and don't feel like doing the extra work >required to turn it into a commercial product. So they drop it into >the PD distribution channels *without* trying to make a quick buck by >putting in a "send me money or you'll pay in the afterlife" message. > Shareware writers drop their software into the PD distribution channels in order to avoid the expense of commercial advertising, thus enabling them to ask for smaller fees, saving themselves *and* the satisfied users some money (unsatisfied users need not pay). Shareware software is NOT PD software. Ideally, a shareware writer will spend a good deal of his/her time making the software of commercial quality. I do not believe shareware marketing is an attempt to make a "quick buck". A great deal of time and energy may go into a shareware product. Although all of this sounds good in theory, I do not believe it is working. Some form of quality control may help. As the responses to a related discussion in comp.sources.d showed, many of the high quality PD programs that are available are free because the authors were prevented from marketing their work due to contractual restrictions. -- Dominick J. Samperi, Manhattan College, NYC manhat!samperi@NYU.EDU or ihnp4!cmcl2!manhat!samperi (cmcL2)
Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com (01/24/88)
learn@igloo.UUCP writes:
->(Discussion of the "honesty" of using shareware without paying for it,
->including an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for
->the word.)
The OED isn't much use here, it's primarily an historical work. Anyway
dictionaries don't define language, they just record how people use it.
I think most people consider that "honesty" consists in part of telling
the truth, but also in adhering to other common standards of behavior.
->Now, someone *gives* me (or otherwise makes available at no cost) a
->piece of software. I haven't done anything dishonest so far. They then
->say "Give me money if you use this." I *still* haven't done anything
->dishonest.
You mean, "if I continue to use the product without paying". Well,
you certainly haven't lied to anyone, but many people would say you're
being dishonest (or at least "dishonorable", a related word) in
taking advantage of someone else's effort without recompensing them.
It's as if someone had laid out a buffet and left a cup labelled,
"if you're hungry, eat and pay what you can"; and you ate but chose
not to pay because you want to save the money for a movie.
->As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in
->the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You
->can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a
->prior agreement about such.
You're overextending a concept here. If I give you a physical thing
(like a pencil stamped "Vote for Isaac!"), you don't have to give it
back. But software isn't just a magnetized disk, it's an intellecutal
property, like a copyrighted book. (Some courts think it's more like
a patented invention; but all agree that it *is* intellectual property.)
If an author gives you a book, you own the book, but the author owns
the words inside; he can restrict your use of them, such as reading
them over the radio or feeding them through a OCR scanner. Which is
fair: if the creator can't control access to the creation, he can't
profit from it, and has no incentive to create, a principle recognized
in all law, including the U.S. Constitution.
->
->Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are
->value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the
->same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral
->and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell
->them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it?
I find it amusing that everyone on the net finds criticism immoral,
but never hesitates to criticize. It would seem that one's own
anger is the ultimate justification, but other people's anger justifies
nothing.
But back to the point: do you find shareware less disgusting than the normal
means of distribution? When you pay a $100 shareware registration fee,
most of the money goes to recompense the programmer and (not incidentally)
motivating him to produce more products. By contrast, when you walk
into a software store and give the clerk $100 or send $100 to a mail order
house, about $30 dollars goes to the retailer, another $30 goes to
the distributor, another $10 goes to packaging (which adds nothing to
the product, but which is esential for mass-marketing). What's
left goes to the programmer *if* he's not the salaried lacky of some
bloated business (did you know Lotus employs more marketeers than
programmers?)
The shareware customer also gets a free trial period. That benefit
alone, I think, outweighs psychic damage he suffer from accusations
of dishonesty. If I look at my shelves and total up the cost of
retail software I wish I could have *used* before I had to make the
purchase decision, and I come to a *lot* of dollars, more than
my hardware cost!
None of which means that shareware is gonna work. Relies too much
on people's honesty.
Isaac Rabinovitch
Disclaimer: Just because I think you're wrong, doesn't
mean I don't think you're a fun person!
:-)mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/24/88)
In article <6376@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes:
<The difference in my view is that I feel a distiction must be made
<between different 'classes', if you will, of shareware. There are the
<neat screen hacks, [...]
<On the other hand, there is a more elite class of shareware; programs
<that are in fact of commercial quality (yes I know that's ambiguous) or
There are to many levels to break it down into just three categories.
I think you need at least three independent quantities:
1) usefullness: ranging from cute screen hacks (hi Leo) to things you
use every time you turn the system on.
2) quality: Mostly, how bug-free & well documented is it.
3) greed: ranging from an obnoxious message that appears everytime you
use the program, to no request for money whatsoever.
I expect you can find programs in any of the eight corners.
But there are *still* oddball cases that don't fit. There's a Logo
floating around for the Amiga. It behaves in a manner I'd consider
most offensive: you have to look at a message everytime it comes up
asking you to send money. It's a solid program, and mimics Apple Logo
(so you have to get the documentation from elsewhere).
However, the message doesn't say "Send me $'s", it says "If you
haven't made a large contribution to the public domain, could you send
money to <non-profit organization for teaching third-world children to
read>".
I applauded, even as much as I detest most programs with such
behavior. I called the author, chatted with him about it (found out
that the copy I had shouldn't have been release, as it was still in
beta test), and congratulated him on that.
You see, though the message behaves in an offensive manner, it captures
the hacker ethic - give your software away for the good of the
community. He just used the shareware hack to urge those who hadn't
contributed in the same way to help in a different way.
Greedware? Clearly not. Shareware? Yes, in the true sense of the word.
In the normal sense? I dunno...
<mike
--
I'm gonna lasso you with my rubberband lazer, Mike Meyer
Pull you closer to me, and look right to the moon. mwm@berkeley.edu
Ride side by side when worlds collide, ucbvax!mwm
And slip into the Martian tide. mwm@ucbjade.BITNEThoff@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Tom Hoff) (01/26/88)
In article(s) <too many to include here)> A good portion of the net writes:
"if I continue to use the product without paying"
Anyone know of any shareware authors defending their interests and winning in
a court of law?
--Tom
--
Tom Hoff (...!hplabs!hp-sdd!hoff)
"Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not a spokesman!"mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/26/88)
In article <2690@cup.portal.com> Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes: <learn@igloo.UUCP writes: <->(Discussion of the "honesty" of using shareware without paying for it, <->including an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for <->the word.) <The OED isn't much use here, it's primarily an historical work. Anyway <dictionaries don't define language, they just record how people use it. That's O_A_D, not E - the Oxford American Dictionary. As for the rest of it, you apparently want words to mean what you say they mean. Fine, so long as I have the same privilege :-). <You mean, "if I continue to use the product without paying". Well, <you certainly haven't lied to anyone, but many people would say you're <being dishonest (or at least "dishonorable", a related word) in <taking advantage of someone else's effort without recompensing them. You're the only person I've run into who'd say "dishonest." Immoral, unethical, and slime, yeah - lots of those. Since those things usually imply dishonorable, some of those, too. <You're overextending a concept here. If I give you a physical thing <(like a pencil stamped "Vote for Isaac!"), you don't have to give it <back. But software isn't just a magnetized disk, it's an intellecutal <property, like a copyrighted book. Hold on - if somebody gives me property (whether it's "intellectual" or otherwise), then it's mine. The only right that I don't have when it's intellectual property is the right to create copies to give to other people. Of course, if I can clone BMWs, it's not clear whether I can give the clones away. Given the current laws, probably not (especially after the lawyers at BMW get through with me). <But back to the point: do you find shareware less disgusting than the normal <means of distribution? Slightly. The shareware is taking a free ride on the freeware distribution channels. Software hoarders doesn't do that. <The shareware customer also gets a free trial period. That benefit <alone, I think, outweighs psychic damage he suffer from accusations <of dishonesty. If I look at my shelves and total up the cost of <retail software I wish I could have *used* before I had to make the <purchase decision, and I come to a *lot* of dollars, more than <my hardware cost! You mean you don't deal with people who will let you return the software if it's a dog? I do. Of course, this requires building a working relationship with the dealer so he trusts you. On the other hand, you get feedback on the quality of software before you buy it, help with it if you have problems, and a reasonable channel for reporting bugs. <None of which means that shareware is gonna work. Relies too much <on people's honesty. No, not on honesty. On their ethics matching yours. And it does work, in some cases. But only in those cases where the person doing the shareware has produced a product of commercial quality, and "sold" it at significantly less than commercial prices. But the latter is only possible because they shareware auther gets a free ride on the freeware channels (thus taking advantage of the efforts of the people running those channels without recompensing them). <mike -- Look at my hopes, Mike Meyer Look at my dreams. mwm@berkeley.edu The currency we've spent, ucbvax!mwm I love you. You pay my rent. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/26/88)
In article <39910@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
<I have yet to see
<any shareware that *doesn't* say something upfront like:
<
< "Hey, you! THIS IS SHAREWARE! This means that you can
< try it out, and if you like it enough to use it, then
< send me $xxxx in small, unmarked bills. If you *don't*
< like it enough to use it, then erase your copy and go
< have fun doing whatever. You can pass this on to your
< minions and cohorts, with this message included, so they
< can make their own minds up."
I have. I've seen shareware that has a comment buried in the sources
asking for money.
<Exactly! Shareware is *NOT* PD "freeware",
Oh? It comes over the wire (or in the mail) with the freeware, it
encourages you to make copies of it and give it away. Sure looks like
freeware to me. Some of it doesn't even have a copyright notice (or,
worse yet, has a copyright notice that won't stand up in a court). In
any case, once it's in my hands, it's mine - just like any other
unsolicitied material. The copyright laws prevent me from giving it
away (if applicable), but not from using it.
<You probably shouldn't try this tack in court, by the way. There
<is quite a bit of precedent in marketing goods or services where the
<first use/service is free if you don't like the product. ("Just
<mark cancel on your first bill...")
You can turn off the service, but you can't take back the product
they've given you to date. In other words, taking the software back is
going to be hard. Of course, I'd only try that tack if some shareware
author tried to sue me about using the software without having sent
them money (I don't use any software that says "If you use this,
please send $XX to Joe Bob's Software Sweatshop", so it's not likely).
Should that tack fail, I can always compare it to "shrinkwrap" license
agreements (which aren't binding).
Given the amounts usually involved in shareware, any court case would
almost certainly go to small claims court. Where it would almost as
certainly get thrown out of court. But I'll check with my resident
lawyer ASAP.
<Ah ha! You have a choice, don't you? Go with shareware (which often
<includes support and documentation for paying users), or go for free
<PD software, which usually implies neither. (Although source and some
<documentation may be included...and that's just fine.)
Shareware that includes support? Gee, I don't see much of that.
Documentation? _NO_ piece of shareware (and not bloody much commercial
software) I've ever run into matches the documentation in small tex -
which is freeware. On average, the shareware is no better than the
freeware.
<I have yet to see shareware forced on anyone.
<Again, shareware is seldom forced on you. You usually have to go
<to the trouble of getting it.
<If you don't like shareware (which you don't, apparently) THEN DON'T
<HANDLE THE STUFF. Use PD offerings instead. Shareware is an
<alternative to mainline commercial software, NOT free PD software.
<(Of course, if you don't like the product...you're not out anything
<more than some time, and maybe some phone connect charges.)
Ah, you see - I don't have much choice. I get shareware whether I want
it or not. It comes in riding the streams of freeware I get. In some
cases, there's a person who decides to include it. In others, all it
takes is the shareware auther saying "I can reach umpty-ump thousand
people by putting this here!" Is the stuff forced on me? Yes, if I
want the freeware stream it's freeloading on. Worse yet, I have to pay
to get it - whether I use it or not.
You see, the problem isn't that I don't like freeware - the problem is
that the stuff is just software hoarders who don't want to take the
risk involved in marketing a real product (yes, I know - there are
exceptions. But not many). I don't like the _concept_.
<phonibalonica, indeed!
Have a beer and some pretzels :-).
<mike
--
My feet are set for dancing, Mike Meyer
Won't you turn your music on. mwm@berkeley.edu
My heart is like a loaded gun, ucbvax!mwm
Won't you let the water run. mwm@ucbjade.BITNEThoward@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (01/27/88)
In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in > the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You > can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a > prior agreement about such. In article <469@aimt.UUCP> breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) writes: >I think that the laws state that you can not be required to pay for unsolicited >stuff that you get in the mail. But you do not get to keep the stuff. In at least some states, the last sentence is false. If someone sends you unsolicited goods in the mail, they're yours, and you owe nothing. That makes Mike more right than Robert. -- Howard A. Landman {oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET One hand clapping sounds a lot like two hands clapping, only quieter.
han@apple.UUCP (-- Byron B. Han --) (01/27/88)
In article <6717@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2690@cup.portal.com> Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes: ><learn@igloo.UUCP writes: Please please please - no more cross posting on this. Let's confine this to comp.sys.misc or somewhere else appropriate. This cross-posting is ridiculous! -- ------------------------ Byron Han, Communications Tool ---------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 27Y Cupertino, CA 95014 ATTnet:408-973-6450 applelink:HAN1 domain:han@apple.COM MacNET:HAN GENIE:BYRONHAN COMPUSERVE:72167,1664 UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!han
exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) (01/27/88)
Instead of quoting the last three hundred people, I am going to give my views... How many people have paid more than US$100 for a software package to find out that it does not do something that the 'other' package costing a little more _did_ do? And how many stores have the broken shrink-wrap/no-return policy (every single one in my area)? How many salesmen know what they are talking about when they sell the afore-mentioned software packages? (If they do know about the packages, they are creating them and not selling them :-) An alternative? Yes, shareware. Shareware is a great concept except for one small detail. It relies on the honesty of the participants. In European countries, that wouldn't be so bad (at least from my experiences...I have lived in Europe for 13 years). In America, piracy has turned the software (and even the hardware industry with IBM PC clones) industry inside out. No flames please, I am not saying everyone is a thief, I am not saying Europeans are perfect, no one take it personal. But if everyone who used Shareware and paid for it, it might gain some respect. It is damned nice to be able to use a piece of software for a day, month, couple of months before paying for it. If only to find out what it can do, and also to figure out if it contains any disasterous bugs that prevent it from being usable. How many people would have bought the ST version of Wordperfect if they had know its flaws? Not many. Shareware as a concept has been introduced. Don't knock it.
lriggins@afit-ab.arpa (L. Maurice Riggins) (01/27/88)
In article <1554@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> buzz@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mahboud Zabetian) writes: > >I read this newsgroup to learn about the mac. I think most of us have heard >enough about software copying and shareware. > >You may say it costs nothing extra to cross post; if you were on a 1200baud >terminal, you would realize how frustrating your long(and inconclusive) >discussions are. Hear! Hear! Even just having to put up with the long headers is a pain! Don't recommend using "n", I already do. It's inconsiderate for a few individuals who's extensive cross-post list begins with amiga to fill up the comp.sys.mac and other machines that many of us read. Please take this thread to comp.misc or somewhere else! How can you help? If you're going to reply, edit the reply to to comp.sys.amiga where most of the posters have their first newsgroup. Let's have a little net discipline here. -- Maurice lriggins@afit-ab.ARPA
rgale@pnet01.cts.com (Ryan Gale) (01/28/88)
holtz@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Fred Holtz) writes: >In article <486@sdacs.ucsd.EDU> wade@sdacs.ucsd.EDU (Wade Blomgren) writes: >> >>When was the last time anybody received truly _UNSOLICITED_ shareware? Do >> . . . >>The reality is each and every one of us either explicitly downloads such >>programs from a bbs or timesharing service, or receives floppy disks > >This only makes sense if the shareware has only been posted by the author to: >a) his own BBS which has shareware guidelines, or >b) a BBS or individual from which a specific request for the software was made. > >Otherwise it has been sent unrequested. The BBS on which it resides may have >guidelines for its use, but most do not. If the sysop does not care that you >copy and use unrequested software then you have the right to do so. You miss the the point. It may have been sent unsolicited to the BBS, but unless it's *your* BBS it wasn't sent to you. It takes a good deal of deliberate effort on your part in order to receive these "unsolicited" programs you're talking about: you have to call the BBS, invoke its downloading facility, transfer the file to your system, probably uudecode or unarc it in order to be able to run it, etc. None of these steps happen by themselves; every one of them is under your conscious control: no way did that software arrive on your machine "unsolicited"! --- Ryan Gale UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!rgale ARPA: crash!pnet01!rgale@nosc.mil INET: rgale@pnet01.CTS.COM
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (01/28/88)
In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: ><Note the general ><treatment of shareware: People get it for free (or for minimal effort) ><and very seldom do those who keep and use it ever pay *anything* for ><it. Which, besides being unfair, is dishonest. > >Dishonest? Unfair? I'd suggest you look in a dictionary. For instance, >the OAD says that dishonest is merely not honest, and that honest is: > >Now, someone *gives* me (or otherwise makes available at no cost) a >piece of software. I haven't done anything dishonest so far. They then >say "Give me money if you use this." I *still* haven't done anything >dishonest. Note above the original poster was quite specific when he mentioned "those who keep and use..." ^^^ >As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in >the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You >can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a >prior agreement about such. Most shareware comes with a usage agreement built in. I don't know if the agreements, or if all of them, are exactly legal, but the concept of honesty is distinct from the concept of legal. I can lie and be dishonest without actually breaking any laws. >Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are >value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the >same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral >and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell >them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it? >Especially when in many cases someone else is willing to give you the >something very similar without calling you names if you don't pay for >it. This is not the intended agreement behind shareware at all. You are expected to keep, and even distribute the thing with no strings attached. If you use it beyond a trial period (I know, not specific), you are "required" to pay for it or stop using it. That seems reasonable and fair. If someone else gives you a preferred substitute for free, then use it, and no one is asking you to pay for the original. Is this "concept" still immoral to you? The agreement is usually well specified within the software, and is probably covered under the rule of acceptance-implies-agreement laws. No one is forcing you to use the stuff, or pay for it. > <mike John Gilbert -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john
dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (01/28/88)
In article <1348@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I did a survey last year which pretty much proved to me that shareware >is a hoax. It doesn't work. Damn! If only I had known that before I mailed off all those registration checks--I could have saved a real bundle over the years. . . . Dick -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!sun!plx!slvblc!dick Voice: 1 408 336-3481 USPO: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005 LORAN: N37 05.5 W122 05.2 --
waldman@endor.harvard.edu (benjamin Waldman) (01/28/88)
STOP POSTING THIS DISCUSSION to comp.sys.mac. That's not what this group is for. Keep it on comp.misc, where those who care to pursue this pointlesss discussion can do so without irritating the rest of us. THAT's RIGHT - take it OFF the newsgroups line!!! Ben Waldman waldman@endor.harvard.edu
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/28/88)
[Once again, followups have been pointed to comp.sys.misc ONLY.] In article <2422@crash.cts.com> rgale@pnet01.cts.com (Ryan Gale) writes: <holtz@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Fred Holtz) writes: <>In article <486@sdacs.ucsd.EDU> wade@sdacs.ucsd.EDU (Wade Blomgren) writes: <>>When was the last time anybody received truly _UNSOLICITED_ shareware? Do <>This only makes sense if the shareware has only been posted by the author to: <You miss the the point. It may have been sent unsolicited to the BBS, but And lots of others, with similar arguments both ways. As promised, I checked with a lawyer. The gist is simple: Unsoliticed good sent through the US Mail system are keepable by the recipient, with no obligation to pay for them. This law only applies to physical mail. It does *not* apply to things you get through other media - say, downloaded from a BBS, or over usenet. So the arguments about whether such are "solicited" or not are moot. Likewise, goods you order (like "the next 50 disks from this library"), knowing you may or will get shareware, are not unsolicited. On the other hand, 90+% of the shareware floating is done in such a way that the authers have no legal recourse to extract money from users who don't pay. The remainder still needs to be tested in court, but will probably (opinion of one lawyer who hasn't really looked into it) be found legit. I plan on posting guidelines on how to make sure your software is in the "maybe" percentage, instead of the "no way" percentage, hopefully in the next few days (if I don't make it, it means in the latter half of February). Unless I get strong opinions either way (by _mail_), I'm going to post to the multitude of groups again, as such guidelines are usefull and applicable to them all. <mike -- I know the world is flat. Mike Meyer Don't try tell me that it's round. mwm@berkeley.edu I know the world stands still. ucbvax!mwm Don't try to make it turn around. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/28/88)
My policy with regaurd to shareware is that if I ever find it
usefull I'll send the author a reasonable contribution. For instance,
I have vt100 and Handshake on disk somewhare (I don't know if either
or both are share or freeware), but never use either one, because I
also have a (PR) copy of Diga!, which I find easier to use. On the
other hand I am preparing to send the authors of ARC a contribution
of $20, as I use this program quite often.
I would prefer to figure out some low-cost distribution mechanism
that is workable for all involved. We (Haitex) figure money cannot be
made on and program selling for less than $15 retail. By the time
you add up all the basic costs thats it. And the programmer would
make next to nothing (as would everyone else).
Wade.
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMhoward@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (01/29/88)
In article <39947@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >There are two common ways to get shareware, thru >BBS's and on library disks. But to get the package you have to *ask* for it >and suddenly it isn't an unsolicited gift now is it? You're forgetting "through USENET". This is the way I get most of my shareware, and it is most definitely unsolicited, though not unappreciated. -- Howard A. Landman {oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET All the clouds turn to words, all the words float in sequence ...
amiguy@pnet01.cts.com (Sean Wolfe) (01/29/88)
howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >In article <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >> As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in >> the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You >> can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a >> prior agreement about such. > >In article <469@aimt.UUCP> breck@aimt.UUCP (Robert Breckinridge Beatie) writes: >>I think that the laws state that you can not be required to pay for unsolicited >>stuff that you get in the mail. But you do not get to keep the stuff. > >In at least some states, the last sentence is false. If someone sends you >unsolicited goods in the mail, they're yours, and you owe nothing. That makes >Mike more right than Robert. > Guys, It is not a law that varies from State to State, it is a Federal law, handed down by the Federal Government, not local or state government. If someone sends you unsolicited material in the mail, it is simpily yours to keep, You are under no obligation to return it what-so-ever. Call your local postmater and ask! But, what if someone else sends for something and fraudently puts your name and address dowm. For example, what if someone fills out one of those magazine subscription cards and places someone elses name and address on it without that persons knowledge? (This is of course a "bill me" order, not a pre-pay) They usually send you 2 or 3 issues before that stop sending due to failure to pay. ?????????? / \ean / UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!amiguy ARPA: crash!pnet01!amiguy@nosc.mil INET: amiguy@pnet01.CTS.COM
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (01/29/88)
In article <1348@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Why all this discussion of a moot issue like shareware? I did a survey last >year which pretty much proved to me that shareware is a hoax. It doesn't >work. The number of shareware success stories can be counted on your fingers, >and they all have something going for them other than the shareware concept. > >It's a hoax. Well, when I started this thread (amazing how conversations grow sometimes) I ended with a comment about shareware being a good idea in some ways -- Mainly because it took advantage of the fact that software is so easily copyable. But as with any product. In order to get money out of the public you have to provide some good product. Either (as in the case of disposable razors) the cheapest form of the product, or a good quality product. Bad shareware doesn't get money. Good shareware will get money. Mediocre shareware will get some money. It's not exactly a hoax and neither is it moot. A different system of distributing software needs to be developed ... one that will allow authors reasonable returns ... one that will allow people to make backup copies of software, give copies to friends, whatever ... maybe it's the holy grail. BUT IT REALLY GRIPES ME THAT I'VE GOT THIS MULTI-TASKING MACHINE (Amiga), AND A LOT OF THE SOFTWARE WON'T MULTI-TASK BECAUSE OF SOME SORT OF COPY PROTECTION SCHEME THAT! ahem seriously ... I'd like to bring up Little Computer People ... play with it awhile ... put it in the background ... come back to it later ... etc. that's an example of the stupid things that happen because companies have to copy-protect their software ... there are many other stories -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- <---- It takes more than a good memory to have good memories.
sc_dra@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Dave Allum) (01/29/88)
In article <3933@husc6.harvard.edu> waldman@endor.UUCP (benjamin Waldman) writes: >STOP POSTING THIS DISCUSSION to comp.sys.mac. >That's not what this group is for. Keep it on comp.misc, where those who >care to pursue this pointlesss discussion can do so without irritating >the rest of us. > >THAT's RIGHT - take it OFF the newsgroups line!!! > >Ben Waldman >waldman@endor.harvard.edu And comp.sys.atari.st too please. Enough has been said already and every point has been repeated in many postings. Enough is enough. Please.
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (01/30/88)
In article <1091@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >In article <39947@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >>There are two common ways to get shareware, thru >>BBS's and on library disks. But to get the package you have to *ask* for it >>and suddenly it isn't an unsolicited gift now is it? > >You're forgetting "through USENET". This is the way I get most of my >shareware, and it is most definitely unsolicited, though not unappreciated. > It's not really unsolicited -- the fact that your machine carries the sources and binary groups, the fact that you invoke "rn" or another news reader, the fact that you type "s filename" ... all of these are VERY comparable to downloading from a BBS. But this discussion is MOOT because shareware does not usually solicit contributions for POSSESSION but for USE, and use never is involuntary or unsolicited. Wolf Paul ihnp4!killer!wnp
karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (01/31/88)
In article <1091@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >In article <39947@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >>There are two common ways to get shareware, thru >>BBS's and on library disks. But to get the package you have to *ask* for it >>and suddenly it isn't an unsolicited gift now is it? >You're forgetting "through USENET". This is the way I get most of my >shareware, and it is most definitely unsolicited, though not unappreciated. But did you 'subscribe' to this group on Usenet knowing that you would get shareware in it? I'd bet so.... If this is the case, you're not getting anything 'unsolicited'. And in any event, even with Usenet, it takes *work* and *time* to get the software on your system. (uudecode and file transfer aren't automatic!) Unsolicited? If it showed up on your system without warning or notice, it would be. But the act of converting/downloading the stuff certainly is an act which could be considered 'solicitation' of the software... you ARE trying to receive it; it doesn't "just arrive". -- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/31/88)
in article <39947@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) says: >. There are two common ways to get shareware, thru > BBS's and on library disks. But to get the package you have to *ask* for it > and suddenly it isn't an unsolicited gift now is it? My experience is that > most shareware packages are clearly marked as such and thus pleading ignorance > of the status of the code is not usually possible. Ah well, back to the > flames. Obviously you don't frequent the BBS's and computer clubs that I do. The closest to ""documentation"" that these small-time operations present is a listing of the disk directory (piped to printer, of course). Now, if you see a file named "expr34.exe", can you tell that it's shareware? Ya download it (or copy it), and take your chances (with hard drive out of the system, of course!). Sorry, won't cut it. If your argument is that these programs were "clearly marked", then don't distribute them through channels that eliminate this "clearly marked" status (i.e. BBS's and clubs). Whereupon you just eliminated the whole argument for shareware (the wide distribution). Actually, there's something akin to shareware that might be even more popular in the future: Teaserware. An example is the "Express" word processor for CP/M. They have a teaser out, that implements most of the features of the full word processor, and is useful, to boot (certainly beats VDE, VDO, and any other PD CP/M word processor that I've seen). If I used CP/M much, I'd probably send in my $40 or whatever for the complete program and manual. On the other hand, I wouldn't know that these people existed if they'd gone the usual distribution route (is there even a magazine for CP/M anymore?!). Alas, I doubt that many other programmers would do the same... they'd probably just release a silly demo program that was useless for doing anything but advertising the full-fledged program. Instead of what the authors of Express did, releasing an early version of the program into the copylefted domain, quite useful in what it does (basic text editing). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/05/88)
In article <486@sdacs.ucsd.EDU>, wade@sdacs.ucsd.EDU (Wade Blomgren) writes: > the programs on those disks will have the "shareware" label. And don't tell > me that stuff in comp.sys.*.binaries is unsolicited. You "subscribe" > to the newsgroup, don't you? Unless you happen to own a PC/AT running Microport System V/AT and happen to by default get all the newsgroups your neighbor gets... or are running UUPC software on your Amiga... or are running a BBS... -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
OLIVIER@cs.vu.nl (O.L. van Wijngaarden ) (02/05/88)
Once a week we receive an enormous amount of news from the United States. It is sometimes interesting to read some of the newsgroups. However, it is extremely annoying and timeconsuming to read messages which do not belong in the newsgroup in which they are posted. This the case with the endless series of messages on the subject of software copying. I urge on those who posted them not to do so in the future. So, please, when you flame on the subject of software copying, reduce your newsgroups to which you post your messages, comp.sys.misc seems appropriate to me. Whishing not to hear from you again, Olivier van Wijngaarden. P.S. At least, don't post them to comp.sys.amiga.
dlw@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (David Williams) (02/06/88)
RE:Share ware and Honesty Please move this discussion out of comp.sys.mac to ANY other notes group, my J key is getting tired. THe same thing goes for the DONGLES discussion! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
nor1675@dsacg2.UUCP (Michael Figg) (02/06/88)
In article <971@uop.edu>, exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) writes: > > Shareware is a great concept except for one small detail. It relies on > the honesty of the participants. In European countries, that wouldn't be > so bad (at least from my experiences...I have lived in Europe for 13 years). > In America, piracy has turned the software (and even the hardware industry > with IBM PC clones) industry inside out. .......... > > Shareware as a concept has been introduced. Don't knock it. I can't agree more with the concept of shareware. I think that it is great that programmers release their efforts to the honor system, caring more about producing worthwhile software than how much they are going to make on it. As far as the honest europeans goes though I beg to differ. It seems that much of the pirated software that I have seen (not my own, of course!) has been cracked in europe. And where do think the Swiss Cracking Association is from. I just read this morning in a recent copy of AC that the new revision to PageSetter was pass-word protected because european dealers would not sell it without protection because of the problem with piracy in europe. Of course we are not quite perfect here either yet :-). -- "So this is reality!" Michael Figg DLA System Automation Center Columbus, Ohio (614)-238-9036
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (02/07/88)
Part of the reason for the failure of most Shareware products to realize the author any remuneration for his time and effort is simple ignorance of a basic showbiz tenet: always leave 'em wanting more. Relying upon the expansiveness and generosity of the public to compensate the author for what they already have looks good in pious policy statements but the facts speak otherwise. Very few people contribute unless you give them an additional reason to. This might be a bound manual or source code or something that the purist element might resent: limited program features. Or it might include technical assistance (for a program that might demand it). I think that any potential Shareware author should plan his distribution with at least SOME observation of basic marketing psychology. If you give away both the carrot and the stick then your "sales pitch" is going to be no more effective than standing on a corner with a paper cup. -- +----- + Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. NYC + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + SmartMail: manes@magpie.MASA.COM
zu@ethz.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) (02/09/88)
Here are two stories belonging to software piracy. They may not be worth more than two cents, but here they go anyway. >Shareware is a great concept except for one small detail. It relies on >the honesty of the participants. In European countries, that wouldn't be >so bad (at least from my experiences...I have lived in Europe for 13 years). I do not comment on that although I'm a European. I think it would be better never to tell such things again. Why? See below! Last week I made an interesting experience. I had contact to many software houses. And ALL OF THEM are piracing software from other companies. You see, they make a living out of selling software but the don't hesitate to use software from other manufacturers they didn't pay. I asked the management what they would do if someone just copied their software and would give it away to his friends so they could use it for free. I think you can imagine what they said. Then I asked them why they pirate software themselves. "Oh", they told me, "that's not the same thing. We had that customer who had that software, and you know, we needed it. And why should we buy it. We have it now, and it's definetly much more cheaper." (Ok, I can agree with the last point :-) ). As long as software houses steal software there is NO WAY the situation will ever be better. (Maybe US software houses are more honest in this aspect. I don't know, I never lived in the USA). The other story: (Many of you know it already, especially the readers of one peculiar newsgroup. I don't tell you in this article what kind of computer was involved. Don't ask me why! I just don't know.) Some time ago someone developped a Virus which copied itself onto the next disk that you booted from (unless you turned power off, of course). After some time it just displayed a message. It was meant to be harmless - no hidden formatting or so. Ok, there was an unwished side effect but that's another story. What happened to this virus. Well it got spread around the WORLD in about two months. And because it copied itself only onto the next boot floppy it was spread mainly by illegal redistribution of copy protected commercial software. (You had to boot from those floppies.) It was quite a shock for software companies to learn about how fast there products are copied. But that's not the point I wanted to make. The real point is, that if you go to the software shop in your neighbourhood and buy a package which comes directly from the manufacturer, still wrink wrapped, you will find the virus on it. Have a nice day, anyway, ...urs UUCP: ...seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!zu Disclaimer: I don't work for a company. I'm just a student. If anybody is going to say, my opinion is the opinion of all thirty thousand students here, then I'm proud of myself.