root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) (03/07/90)
There's been a rather long conversation about shareware, and quite a few people
have said things about what amounts to the "mandate of the masses". To get a
better idea of what the real situation is, I'd like you to take a minute or
two and answer the following question:
Shareware: A (usually) binary program that can be freely copied, with the
understanding that if you find the program useful and use it, that you
should send some money to the author of the program.
In your opinion, should people be allowed to distribute shareware through
the network? Should there be any restrictions on that distribution (IE
geographic restrictions OR newsgroup restrictions)? Should there be a
seperate group for shareware or other commercial software?
Please respond via email. I will post the results recieved to comp.sources.d
on march 15th.
Reply to: uw-beaver!sumax!polari!bruceki
or
bruceki@polari.UUCPmaine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) (03/08/90)
Bruceki asks for opinions about shareware on useNet. (Sorry about posting this, but I tried several times and couldn't get the address you gave to work. There do exist some of us that use domain-style names and don't uucp-speak well. Wouldn'tw ant to bias the poll by omitting all of us). My 2c is that I think shareware is a great concept and I like to see it encouraged. I think it should be allowed on the net with no restrivtions. My understanding is that I can't be legally forced to pay for the stuff. However, I do feel ethically obligated to pay for the stuff that is good and I use. I'm really not sure how people can mention law and ethics in the same discussion, like there was any correlation other than often a negative one. In addition to the ethical question, I feel it is in my own best interest to encourage stuff I like by paying for it. Those who disagree with the above opinions and ethical judgements are free to do so. I wrote this to cast my "vote", but I refuse to get drawn into the holy war. Flames to $null, please (pretty please?). I feel that shareware is quite different from "other commercial software". I do not approve of other commercial software on the net. Specifically, it should be possible for me to freely run anything that appears on the net, leaving it for me to then decide whether the product is worth using and/or paying for. If, however, a program cannot be run without me first paying for it, then I consider that a commercial abuse of the net and something to be either disallowed or restricted. The most blatant case I can think of of things I'd disapprove of would be a program that was encoded in such a way that I needed to buy a decryption key from the vendor before I could use it. I don't know if anything like that has actually happened, but if it has, I strongly disapprove. "Crippleware", (where you get a demo version that illustrates how the real one looks, but is not really itself functional) is close to the line. I don't really approve, but I'd hesitate to say that I favor a blanket prohibition of all cases. It probably at least ought to be in a separate group or something. Put me down as wishy-washy on this part of the question. --- Richard Maine maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov [130.134.64.6] -- Richard Maine maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov [130.134.64.6]
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/08/90)
NOTE TO USERS who have trouble reaching "polari.UUCP": try root%polari@UUNET.UU.NET
root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) (03/09/90)
To answer a couple of questions that I've gotten and to make sure that people understand what's going on: This is a poll. It has no validity other than as an informational tool in the discussion of shareware on the network. I am not usenet; I am an individual who is tallying opinions of other individuals on the network. When we get to announced date (march 15th) I will write a short (2 pages or less) summary, breaking down the number of respondents, who they were, and what each persons opinion is and a paragraph or two commenting on suggestions people have made. Currently the raw data is >100K in length, and in the interests of conserving net bandwidth, I'm not going to post the raw data; but I will mail it to whomever is interested PROVIDED that you send me email AFTER the 15th of march requesting it. Understand that I may quote you publically if your viewpoint is representative of some significant percentage of respondents. Rather than skew the poll, I am not going to mention the results until the end of the comment period. Brevity is appreciated. Take a few minutes and make your point in as few words as possible.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (03/09/90)
In article <MAINE.90Mar7090212@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov> maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) writes: >My 2c is that I think shareware is a great concept and I like to see it >encouraged. I think it should be allowed on the net with no restrivtions. How nice. Tell me, how much do you pay for feeding news to or from another site? If you had phone bills up in the $100+ range, due *entirely* to news transfer, I have a slight feeling you might change your mind (and, no, I don't have a newsfeed at home [yet?], so I am not paying either). >My understanding is that I can't be legally forced to pay for the stuff. But other people *are* paying for it, in phone bills (or other costs, such as disk space, tapes for backup, leased lines if they have them, etc.). In fact, you *are* paying for it: taxes. And, lucky you, you get *nothing* in return, while the shareware-poster gets free distribution. Isn't that precious? -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts." seanf@sco.COM | -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.