gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (03/06/90)
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) wrote: > Dozens of commercial activities take place on USENET. Job postings, Ads, > announcements, tech support, people asking for help in their work, cars for > sale, rooms for rent, software updates and yes, shareware and lots of it I see the car ads but I have seen VERY little shareware, and I've been archiving most of the sources that have come over the net since 1982. Perhaps Brad's "lots of" shareware is in comp.binaries, which hoptoad does not accept or forward. > (with effectively no complaint prior to this debate.) I complained about it before, when a few shareware things came through. Also, I certainly count Rich $alz's prohibition on shareware in comp.sources.unix as a "complaint". Shareware is an idea for a particular mileau (tiny micros that only run binaries). The Unix answer to shareware is GNUware -- use it all you want, pass it on to your friends, you get full source. AND, if you like it and want to contribute to its development, we accept donations (of both money and technical effort). The Free Software Foundation runs completely on donations, sale of manuals, and sale of tapes. Not on fear and loathing. On donations. No wonder "scareware" isn't popular in the Unix community. If the Usenet gives you such a lousy "registration rate", why not simply go where you are appreciated? Trying to sell to people who dislike your whole concept is not usually a good use of your time. (I realize that the desire to sponge off other peoples' phone bills is a powerful incentive to persevere in the face of this rejection.) -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Boycott the census! The government that invaded Central America does not hesitate to break into "their own" census database to violate your privacy. Maximum penalty for refusing to answer: $100, no jail.
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/07/90)
In article <10612@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >If the Usenet gives you such a lousy "registration rate", why not >simply go where you are appreciated? Trying to sell to people who >dislike your whole concept is not usually a good use of your time. John, let me repeat: I don't post my stuff on Usenet for a variety of reasons. If my stuff has ever been posted on Usenet, it is without my permision and without my knowledge. I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone -- except for trying to simply state that, if you don't register whatever shareware you use, you should stop using it. It's just that simple. Everything else posted, whether or not Usenet should except shareware or not, etc., well, that's just verbiage that seems to sidestep the simple solution: if you don't like it, don't use it. Period. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UU.NET 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (03/10/90)
In article <1370@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >In article <10612@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >> >>If the Usenet gives you such a lousy "registration rate", why not >>simply go where you are appreciated? Trying to sell to people who >>dislike your whole concept is not usually a good use of your time. > >John, let me repeat: I don't post my stuff on Usenet for a variety >of reasons. If my stuff has ever been posted on Usenet, it is without >my permision and without my knowledge. This Ross guy sure wants to have it both ways at once. If he's not holding out hope that someday Usenet will become a willing delivery system for his wares then why has he been the most prolific poster to this discussion? >I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone -- [...] "The check's in the mail." > [...] except for trying to simply >state that, if you don't register whatever shareware you use, you should >stop using it. Says who? Why? The law says it belongs to me already. But you'll notice that Ross stays way away from that argument. Ross sure spews lots of words at us for someone that's "not trying to sell anything to anyone". (Sorry, I know most people have gone into ignore mode with this guy, his attitude just really bothers me.) -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/12/90)
Sorry my attitude bothers you. Stick me in your kill file, Richard. richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >This Ross guy sure wants to have it both ways at once. If he's not >holding out hope that someday Usenet will become a willing delivery >system for his wares then why has he been the most prolific poster >to this discussion? > This Richard guy certainly has a problem reading postings. I've not said a word about Usenet and my code. I don't post it for a variety of reasons, including the idea that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using Usenet for commercial stuff. I merely state, again: if you get shareware, and continue to use shareware programs, either register their usage, or stop. Why is that so difficult for you to understand, Richard? >Says who? Why? > >The law says it belongs to me already. But you'll notice that Ross >stays way away from that argument. > >Ross sure spews lots of words at us for someone that's "not trying to >sell anything to anyone". > Sigh. The law says nothing about it, Richard. Maybe in the future it will. But, you're no lawyer, and neither am I. On my part, I have too much self respect to become a lawyer, on your part it's because the legal profession has too much self respect for itself. I stay away from the legal arguments simply because there's nothing there that counts, one way or the other. I merely prefer people to act in what I consider an ethical way. If you don't pay for a shareware program, stop using it. That's all. It's the right thing to do. That's all. Using shareware without paying for it is wrong. Paying for the shareware you use is right. If you're uncomfortable paying for shareware, stop using it. That's all. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UU.NET 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) (03/14/90)
Following up to Ross Greenberg: >I stay away from the legal arguments simply because there's nothing there >that counts, one way or the other. I merely prefer people to act in what >I consider an ethical way. If you don't pay for a shareware program, >stop using it. That's all. It's the right thing to do. > >That's all. Using shareware without paying for it is wrong. Paying for >the shareware you use is right. If you're uncomfortable paying for shareware, >stop using it. > >That's all. I think the key issue here is getting lost. The "ethics" that you are referring to, Ross, are by your own words **YOUR** ethics ("...what I consider to be an ethical way"). Your ethics are yours, my ethics are mine, and what folks who keep insisting that shareware is appropriate to distribution via Usenet keep seeming to miss (or to sidestep) is that **YOUR** ethics AND **MY** ethics are not the issue. The issue is simply that the ethics of USENET (and I assure you, there is definitely an ethic) regards the use of other people's computer facilities, and their telephone expenses, to be something which is the responsibility of the person posting an article. And, by the 'club rules' (if you wish to look at it that way), causing other folk to incur costs for the purpose of your own financial gain is a violation of the ETHICS which you are obliged to follow if you use the net. If there is an issue here, it is more a question of why should I respect your rights, and your privacy, etc. when you abuse something of mine?? Albeit you can ignore that issue, and simply address that of the person who is all to happy to grab your software without paying for it, I think you're off base. If you stick a display rack on my front lawn, without my permission, and place your product for sale in it, you can jump up and down all day long about people being 'unethical' if they come by and decide to snatch one for them- selves without paying the requested sum of money. BUT, by definition, you are misusing MY property in doing so. FURTHERMORE, may I remind you that this is a CAPITALISTIC world (and since you're in business, you're a capital- ist too), and NOBODY in the world of business is going to be foolish enough to try to conduct their business that way. Why don't you set up a totally seperate 'SHAREWARE' distribution, which may optionally be carried by any Usenet site, and organize it such that if any- body wants to carry it, they are contractually obliged to pass that obligation on to anybody they feed. And they, in turn, contractually obligate anybody who wants to actually snarf a copy. THEN, you'd have a case for talking about 'ethics' if somebody decides to be a scum and 'steal' a copy without paying the price. Do that, and you've got my unwavering support and sympathy if your efforts are abused. But, do what you're doing now, and I feel NO obligation whatsoever to pay you for an unsolicited product, as well as feeling you're stealing from me. IMHO, Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/15/90)
When we pushed Ross on the actual *Usenet* shareware issue, i.e., whether the core groups should carry it, he more or less said 'oh well, yeah on that part of it I guess I don't care.' Which means all the rest of this is just CIS-lookalike opinion exchange more appropriate to talk.misc than to comp.sources.d. It is apparently impossible to convince some BBS exiles that not every *single* opinion under the sun is appropriate material for a newsgroup like this. In practice, only suppressing the urge to follow up will get us anywhere on this one. (I failed to suppress... :-) ) By the way, how *DO* I chat the sysop on this board? -- "The country couldn't run without Prohibition. ][ Tom Neff That is the industrial fact." -- Henry Ford, 1929 ][ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/16/90)
levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) writes: >Following up to Ross Greenberg: >> >>That's all. Using shareware without paying for it is wrong. Paying for >>the shareware you use is right. If you're uncomfortable paying for shareware, >>stop using it. >> >>That's all. > >I think the key issue here is getting lost. The "ethics" that you are >referring to, Ross, are by your own words **YOUR** ethics ("...what I consider >to be an ethical way"). I know what I write. I try to be pretty careful in my choosing of words. You might have even noted that I've never stated that I have the right, as a shareware author, to distribute something through Usenet. Given an alternate newsgroup to stick it on, I will. Not until then. Forget the Usenet argument of "you put some bits on my disk, they're mine I tell you, all mine!". I consider it bogus, but so what? The grander issue of registering your usage of shareware is the point I'm trying to discuss. Due to arguments such as the above "it's mine!", there simply isn't that much shareware posted on Usenet. Heck, attitudes like those expressed by my worthy opponents in this discussion are making my next cut of my code be offered at $129/copy through normal commercial means instead of @ $10/copy through shareware. I'll make reams more money that way, people won't have to worry about disk space, and the only ones who *really* end up suffering are the folks who depend on shareware authors to continue providing good code at a good price. I'm not so egotistical to try to represent all the shareware authors in the world, but I am seeing more and more shareware turning commercial. The only reason for that is because it's turning less and less profitable. And the only reason for that is because of the (to me) unethical position many users of other's intellectual property take in their defense of stealware. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UU.NET 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/16/90)
In article <15254@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >When we pushed Ross on the actual *Usenet* shareware issue, i.e., >whether the core groups should carry it, he more or less said 'oh well, >yeah on that part of it I guess I don't care.' Which means all the rest >of this is just CIS-lookalike opinion exchange more appropriate to >talk.misc than to comp.sources.d. > Tom, please do what you can to not put words in my mouth. Unless, of course, they're accurate? I said I'm truly ambivilent on this issue of posting shareware to Usenet. As to whether or not this belongs here in comp.sources.d or not, I leave that up to you: note the followup. I don't read talk.misc, btw. >It is apparently impossible to convince some BBS exiles that not every >*single* opinion under the sun is appropriate material for a newsgroup >like this. Tom, I think you'll find that I've been around a while. BBS exile? Hehehehe. When did you become the Keeper of the Net, btw? -- Ross M. Greenberg, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UU.NET 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) (03/17/90)
In article <1360@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >I know what I write. I try to be pretty careful in my choosing of words. >You might have even noted that I've never stated that I have the right, as >a shareware author, to distribute something through Usenet. Given an >alternate newsgroup to stick it on, I will. Not until then. Are you saying "Until there's an alternate newsgroup I'm going to post to Usenet" or "Until there's an alternate newsgroup, I won't post to Usenet"??? If it's the latter, I applaud you. If it's the former, then you're essentially saying is that you'll follow the rules once you like them, and until then you'll do what you please. That kind of attitude is one which will truly result in 'bringing down the `net'. >Forget the Usenet argument of "you put some bits on my disk, they're mine >I tell you, all mine!". I consider it bogus, but so what? > >The grander issue of registering your usage of shareware is the point I'm >trying to discuss. Due to arguments such as the above "it's mine!", there >simply isn't that much shareware posted on Usenet. Heck, attitudes like >those expressed by my worthy opponents in this discussion are making my >next cut of my code be offered at $129/copy through normal commercial >means instead of @ $10/copy through shareware. I'll make reams more >money that way, people won't have to worry about disk space, and the >only ones who *really* end up suffering are the folks who depend on >shareware authors to continue providing good code at a good price. I'm >..... I think it would be more accurate to say that your software is going to sell for about $40 to a distributor, who will then sell it to a software dealer for about $65, who will then end up selling it to the end customer for $129. This principle is one which is inherent in our business structure (i.e., Capitalism). Them's the rules, and if you don't like them, then don't play. As to the issue of 'the folks who depend on shareware authors to continue providing good code at a good price', spare me the mock philanthropy. You're not aiming at their needs, but rather at your own, making $$$$$$. If you're *TRULY* worried about the 'poor folks who depend' on you, then send a copy to them for **FREE**. I'll be happy to forward that on my system. After all, I'm a **TRUE** philanthropist, who hasn't got any financial interest whatsoever in my use of the `net. I do it for the benefit of 'the folks who depend' on me, and a whole lot of other philanthropic sites, to create this ethereal entity called 'USENET'. That's what it was originally created for; there's plenty of documentation about it's purpose. IMHO. Have a nice day. :-) Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml