magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) (07/27/90)
I'm looking for definitions of the various distribution forms for "free" software. As far as I've understood, the definitions are as follows: Public Domain: The software is totally 'public'; you may do almost what you like with it - modify it, give it away - as long as you don't sell it opr try to pass it off as your own. Freeware: The software is copyrighted but given away for free. You're not allowed to distribute modified versions. Shareware: The software isn't free, but may be distributed freely. Once you've tried it out and decided to keep it, you have to pay. Does everybody agree that these are reasonable definitions? Also, I have a few questions: Am I permitted to take a PD program, modify it, and use it as a part of a commercial program? Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you don't *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do so)? The distinction is perhaps an academic one; I suppose lots of people keep shareware without paying, but there's still a difference. Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_ Dept. of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q University of Lund, Sweden | >----< Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se | / \===== g Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52 | /e- \q
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (07/28/90)
In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes:
I'm looking for definitions of the various distribution forms for "free"
software. As far as I've understood, the definitions are as follows:
Someone's at this again???
Public Domain: The software is totally 'public'; you may do almost what you
like with it - modify it, give it away - as long as you don't sell it opr
try to pass it off as your own.
Not quite right. Public Domain has legal meaning. If you label your
software as public domain, that meaning applies. For the US, what
you've got is right, except that it's perfectly legal to sell PD
software. Claiming that it's yours is unethical, and can be construed
to be fraud. I don't believe it's explicitly illegal, though.
Freeware: The software is copyrighted but given away for free. You're not
allowed to distribute modified versions.
Most people use "freeware" to mean any software that doesn't have
monetary strings attached. This includes public domain, but also the
GNU software and other things that allow for the distribution of
modified versions.
Shareware: The software isn't free, but may be distributed freely. Once
you've tried it out and decided to keep it, you have to pay.
This definition contains a contradiction. If it isn't free, how did I
get a copy to distribute freely, and how do the people who I give it
to manage to do so other than freely? Just bad wording on your part, I
suspect. It's not clear that there's any legal requirement that you
pay for shareware, so "have to" is a bit strong on the wording. Also,
some software comes with requests - rather than threats of legal
action - and is called "shareware" by it's authors, so that wording
should be changed to include this.
Does everybody agree that these are reasonable definitions?
No. In the US, the first one is wrong. The second one doesn't include
much copyrighted software which is released with permission to modify
and redistribute code for noncommercial uses, and the third has some
wording problems.
Am I permitted to take a PD program, modify it, and use it as a part of a
commercial program?
With the definition of PD recognized in the US legal system,of course
you are. You're even permitted to sell it back to the people who paid
for it's development in the first place.
Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you
don't *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do
so)? The distinction is perhaps an academic one; I suppose lots of people
keep shareware without paying, but there's still a difference.
Until it's proven that you *have* to pay for any shareware, the
distinction seems to be moot. I sometimes refer to the stuff that says
you have to pay as "threatware" or "idiotware", though the latter is
usually reserved for software that contains things like "This code is
in the public domain, and not for commercial use."
<mike
--
The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer
My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. decwrl!mwm
Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (07/28/90)
In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: >I'm looking for definitions of the various distribution forms for "free" >software. As far as I've understood, the definitions are as follows: > >Public Domain: The software is totally 'public'; you may do almost what you >like with it - modify it, give it away - as long as you don't sell it opr try >to pass it off as your own. > If it is truly PD I don't think there is any restriction even on selling it. >Freeware: The software is copyrighted but given away for free. You're not >allowed to distribute modified versions. > I think that this depends on the restrictions the author puts on it. >Shareware: The software isn't free, but may be distributed freely. Once you've >tried it out and decided to keep it, you have to pay. > Of course "have to pay" is a hotly debated question. I guess there is no point in suggesting that we don't have to restart the debate her. :-) >Am I permitted to take a PD program, modify it, and use it as a part of a >commercial program? > I think so but the term PD is often used loosly so be careful of any particular code. >Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you don't >*have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do so)? The >distinction is perhaps an academic one; I suppose lots of people keep shareware >without paying, but there's still a difference. > Ignoring the question of whether you really have to pay for shareware, the term for this that I have heard is "Begware." Disclaimer: I'm no liar^H^H^Hawyer. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | MS-DOS: The Andrew Dice Clay West Hill, Ontario, Canada | of operating systems. + 416 281 6094 |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/28/90)
In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: > Public Domain: The software is totally 'public'; you may do almost what you > like with it - modify it, give it away - as long as you don't sell it opr try > to pass it off as your own. No, you can do that too. Public Domain means just that... anyone can use it for any purpose. > Freeware: The software is copyrighted but given away for free. You're not > allowed to distribute modified versions. No, Freeware is an overall generic term for all of these concepts. The FSF uses it to mean software under the GNU copyleft, but other folks have other ideas. > Shareware: The software isn't free, but may be distributed freely. Once you've > tried it out and decided to keep it, you have to pay. Well, "have" to in some moral sense. A program I wrote, "Browser", comes with a doc file that requests a donation if you feel like it. I consider anything stronger than that to be simply self-deception. > Am I permitted to take a PD program, modify it, and use it as a part of a > commercial program? Yes. > Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you don't > *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do so)? Some of the more aggressive shareware authors have tried to get people to refer to this as "donateware", but it hasn't caught on. There is also "crippleware", shareware that is distributed in crippled or demo form, and you need to send in $$$ to get the real thing. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
kpjeacle@vax1.tcd.ie (Karl Jeacle) (07/29/90)
In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se>, magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: > Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you don't > *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do so)? The I've heard it called 'Happiware'. IMHO, a good name. Distribute it like shareware, only if you find you like it you're not obliged to pay anything. But if you want; a contribution to the author would be an appreciated gesture. > Magnus Olsson -- --//------------------------------------------------------------------------- \X/ Karl Jeacle kpjeacle%ie.tcd.vax1@{cunyvm.cuny.edu,nsfnet-relay.ac.uk}
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (07/30/90)
In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se>, magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: > Is there a name for a distribution form which is like shareware, but you > don't *have* to pay for it, even if you keep it (but are encouraged to do > so)? "Shareware" Anyone who thinks there's anything more to shareware than this is just deluding themselves. The only way to enforce shareware registration and donations is by crippling the distributed version, or distributing a demo. And that's not shareware... it's just an innovative method for advertising commercial software. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
jensting@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Jens Tingleff) (07/31/90)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se>, magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: [..] Plunging head over heels into this, at the risk of getting flamed, I would like an answer to this hypothetical question : If I (someone ;-) ) wanted to distribute a demonstration version of a program (crippled only in the size of the problem that could be handled, reduced from quite large to small-but-usable) totally free, what do I do? Can I post it to USENET somewhere, to biz.*** or whatever ? The uncrippled program would be marketed as a commercial product, but hopefully the demo version would provide a lot of free pulicity ;-) Just wondered.. Jens Jens Tingleff MSc EE, Institute of Computer Science, Copenhagen University Snail mail: DIKU Universitetsparken 1 DK2100 KBH O "It never runs around here; it just comes crashing down" apologies to Dire Straits
josef@nixpbe.UUCP (Moellers) (08/01/90)
In <1990Jul31.071230.27901@diku.dk> jensting@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Jens Tingleff) writes: >peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <9007270846.AA13467@thep.lu.se>, magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes: >[..] >Plunging head over heels into this, at the risk of getting flamed, I >would like an answer to this hypothetical question : >If I (someone ;-) ) wanted to distribute a demonstration version of a program >(crippled only in the size of the problem that could be handled, reduced >from quite large to small-but-usable) totally free, what do I do? Can I post >it to USENET somewhere, to biz.*** or whatever ? The uncrippled program would >be marketed as a commercial product, but hopefully the demo version would >provide a lot of free pulicity ;-) >Just wondered.. ... where exactly lies pi? You then distribute two versions, one as shareware, the other as a commercial product. But when do You consider the "shareware" version a "full" version? -- | Josef Moellers | c/o Nixdorf Computer AG | | USA: mollers.pad@nixbur.uucp | Abt. PXD-S14 | | !USA: mollers.pad@nixpbe.uucp | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring | | Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |