dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (03/18/89)
As moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc I am supposed to draw the line
somewhere between what is suitable for posting and what is not.
I am intending to draw the line between commercial software and free
software as follows:
Ok to post: Software that does not impose a legal
requirement on the user to pay for it.
Not OK to post: Software that does impose a legal
requirement on the user to pay for it.
Sample license (call this example A), not OK to post:
"If you use this program beyond a trial period you are required
to pay $x."
Sample license (example B), OK to post:
"If you find this software useful, a payment of $x is requested."
Suppose we post software with a license like example A. A single
posting might result in perhaps 10 or 15 registrations. In effect we
have provided the software author with 10,000 copies of free
advertising, for the sake of 10 or 15 sales. There may be hundreds of
others using it, but they are using it illegally, and such illegal use
is a factor against the posting, not in favor of it.
Consider example B. Even if that posting too yields 10 or 15
registrations, there may be hundreds of others using it without
payment. Since such use is not illegal, it is a factor in favor of the
posting.
Note that I don't care about a moral stand, e.g. "you *should* pay for
it if you use it...if you do, everyone will benefit etc." That is a
philosophical statement, not a legal requirement. It is outside the
scope of my moderator's duty to judge the validity of such a moral
stand or dictate the enforcement of it. Therefore, no matter how
strong the moral statement, it doesn't matter, so long as it is not
also a legal statement.
This is tentative policy. Comments are welcome. I suggest brief
comments with a minimum of quoted material. Email or post as you
consider appropriate. If I get too many emailed comments I may not be
able to reply individually but I will read all and file the good ones
for future reference.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edubrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/18/89)
I disagree with Rahul. If a shareware program is useful to lots of readers, then I think it is OK to post, even if it's a must-pay program. Remember, if people register a program, it's because *they* are getting something good out of it, something they feel is worth more than the money they handed over for it. If you post something and only 5 people want it, then you haven't really given the author great advertising, unless the fee is $1,000. But in general (here's the tough part) you shouldn't post things that only 5 people want. Whether the payment is compulsory or not is not relevant -- it's whether the readers want it and the net payers want to pay for it that counts. All that the payment does is subtract from the balance. If a program is worth $100 and it registers for $50, then that's +50. This is no different from a program worth $50 that is free. Of course, you have to make an estimate over the whole net. Thus if MKS-vi, a high demand net program, were available shareware with a compulsory payment of $100 if the user wants to keep using it, I would say post it. "Joe's Rolodex" for $30 I would say don't post, and a northern Saskatchewan Holstein management package for free I would say don't post to. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/18/89)
In article <2967@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >If a shareware program is useful to lots of >readers, then I think it is OK to post, even if it's a must-pay program. How do we measure demand for a shareware program? Do we count how many people want to use it in accordance with copyright law? Or do we count the total number of people who want to use it, whether legally or illegally? My feeling is that no matter how many people want to use a program illegally, that *cannot* be considered a factor in favor of posting the program. We must *only* count those people who want to use the program in accordance with copyright law. And my contention is that if payment is legally required, that number becomes infinitesimally small and no longer justifies posting that program. To consider real numbers: Program A requests payment but does not require it. 1,000 people use it. It is a high-demand program, because 1,000 people use it without violating copyright law. It should be posted. Program B legally requires payment for continued use. 1,000 people use it. 10 pay. It is *not* a high-demand program, because illegal use cannot be counted for this purpose, only legal use. It should not be posted. Program C legally requires payment for continued use. 1,000 people use it. 900 pay. It *is* a high-demand program, because there are a large number of legal users. It should be posted. But program C does not exist in reality. Only A and B do. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/18/89)
From article <6191@bsu-cs.UUCP>, by dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi): > As moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc I am supposed to draw the line > somewhere between what is suitable for posting and what is not. > > I am intending to draw the line between commercial software and free > software as follows: > > Ok to post: Software that does not impose a legal > requirement on the user to pay for it. > > Not OK to post: Software that does impose a legal > requirement on the user to pay for it. > > Sample license (call this example A), not OK to post: > > "If you use this program beyond a trial period you are required > to pay $x." > > Sample license (example B), OK to post: > > "If you find this software useful, a payment of $x is requested." > Sorry for the quoted info but it's poitenent. Discussion has been raging on this issue (among others) on the Association of Shareware Professionals forum on CIS (I'm a member of ASP). ASP represents many, if not most, of the major Shareware authors, like Phil Katz (PKZIP), Bob Wallace (PC-WRITE), Jim Button (PC-FILE, PC-CALC), Tom Smith (PROCOMM) as well as licensed vendors of Shareware, like Nelson Ford's Public Software Library. Basically, there is a move in ASP towards more affirmative wording for Shareware "beg screens", not necesarily to the point of threatening users with "30-day evaluation licenses" but eliminating the ambiguity of statements about "contributions" and "eternal thanks" which do, to some extent, leave a false impression with the user that the software is something the author whipped up last year for the heck of it and, sure, send me a few bucks if you get the urge. Many ASP members' sole source of income is from the Shareware and commercial licenses to their software. Basically, the ASP ideal is that the user try the program for as long as s/he needs to evaluate it and if s/he decides that it's of value it should be registered. Some members have taken the next logical step of specifying the boundaries of a realistic "evaluation period" not for the purposes of defining the expiration of a legal "license" but to remind a user who continues to use the software after XX days/weeks that s/he >should< have had enough time and experience with the software to make an educated decision. It's not the policy of ASP that users register on the basis of whether or not they care to pay but on whether or not the software adequately performs the job for which the user needs it. I've not seen any Shareware programs that specify a legal license period prior to registration but, then again, I'm not a Shareware maven. Magpie, my Shareware BBS for Xenix and DOS, will have a 45-day "evaluation period" beginning with v1.3. However, there's no implication that the user is legally obligated to pay after it expires. In fact, such a statement would probably be held in violation of ASP policy (Nelson Ford's comment on the matter was what if the Pope is trying out your software and suddenly gets called out of town to confront the Red Army... should he be required to pay if he returns after the evaluation period has expired?) I'm unclear on how your policy applies here. Certainly, all Shareware is copyrighted and the policy of ASP is that regular users of a Shareware program >should< register so there's an implied, albeit weak, obligation on the regular user of member software to register regardless of any defined "evaluation period". If a Shareware program doesn't explicitly use the word "legal" in its beg screen, is it kosher here? I'll upload your message to ASP and return any comment here. At any rate, I appreciate that you've moderated your earlier postion against posting any software which requests $$. Oh, incidentally, there has also been discussion on ASP about getting a license from you to allow members to distribute their software in SEZ format. I was blown away to see that you kept my name in the SEZ banner! I'm still using one of the early beta copies we were tossing back and forth in our Efficiency Warz (which you won). -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/19/89)
That is a tough question. On one hand one might argue that it is up to the readers to decide if they want to pay for shareware. The sad comment is that we correctly expect most people to use the shareware and not pay for it. As such, we might consider posting such software to be encouraging piracy of shareware. On another hand, there is no question that the shareware authors and even begware authors know what they are getting into, and would fully support the posting, even to a bunch of known illegal users. If they decide that requiring payment will get them a few more payments than not requiring payment, that's up to them as well. Should the moderator pre-judge the morals of the readers? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
greggt@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Gregg F. Thompson) (03/19/89)
Why not make it so that the only restriction would be if the poster of the program is not the author of the program which requires payment then don't post it. Otherwise the policy should be if it is posted on Usenet it should be free to use without restrictions on the use (in the sense of payments). Otherwise c.b.i.p will be giving free advertising for a company that requires payment, thus I feel this falls CLOSELY to commercial software which isn't allowed to be posted here unless there are provisions made by the author (ex. somebody wrote foreign language tutoring programs and the company went under so the author gave them out to PD or shareware, I forget which). If it is a person on usenet then he will have to add to the comments that if the program was received directly from usenet that the user does not have the restriction of pay to use because of the policy of comercial free software on usenet. I don't really care what gets posted but if commercial programs aren't allowed then why should these pay to use programs be allowed? -- To live is to die, to die is to live forever; GRegg Thompson Where will you spend eternity? greggt@vax1.cc.uakron.edu
davis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) (03/19/89)
But some of the commercial stuff that says "distribute freely" is DEMOS: crippled stuff not intended to be useful, intended only to sell the product. Some is slightly crippled, intended to be useful to only the non-serious user. Example: restricted size of something. It hogs just as much disk space, net space, net time, etc. (The PSPICE demo is one of these.) They give these out as ADVERTISING. Posting something like this is FREE ADVERTISING. (Or is it reader subsidized advertising.) Some stuff made by commercial software houses, and posted, is stuff they made for their own internal use, can't sell because it is not their market, and want to share. YES, we want this. NO demos. NO free commercial advertising.
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/19/89)
From article <6203@bsu-cs.UUCP>, by dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi): > My feeling is that no matter how many people want to use a program > illegally, that *cannot* be considered a factor in favor of posting the > program. We must *only* count those people who want to use the program > in accordance with copyright law. And my contention is that if payment > is legally required, that number becomes infinitesimally small and no > longer justifies posting that program. I sent your message concerning posting of commercial software to the Net to ASP (Association of Shareware Professionals) and got a response back this morning from ASP president, Barry Simon. "While it is not official ASP policy (quite) our position has always been that our copyrights give us the legal right to be paid after the trial period. The CIC is batting around the idea that the words "voluntary payment" and "donation" be officially banned [in ASP-member software -ed]. "I think you'll find that the majority of members have language in their docs **requiring** payments after n days. While it may not say legal obligation, it's sure implied". I think ASP is moving towards a vote on the above within the next few weeks. If it passes, as I think it will comfortably, ASP may require members to use more affirmative "try before you buy" wording in their documentation, eliminating the "if you want to send me $x I'll be your friend for life" kind of statement. If this happens, all ASP Shareware will probably be unacceptable here. That would be regrettable considering the caliber and quantity of user-supported software represented by ASP members and the efforts by ASP to clean up this market. For instance, last month ASP created an ombudsman to handle user complaints against an ASP member and is now requiring all ASP Shareware to carry a standard notice informing the user how to file a grievance if s/he can't get satisfaction from the author. There is also a vote pending on the banning of so-called Crippleware and guaranteeing users that the Shareware version==Registered version. It would forbid members from withholding program features, distributing old versions of the program, supplying sketchy documentation or annoying users with overly aggressive "beg screens". A straw vote here indicates that this will also pass handily, albeit possibly at the loss of a member or two. -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/19/89)
From article <108@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU>, by greggt@VAX1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Gregg F. Thompson): > Why not make it so that the only restriction would be if the poster > of the program is not the author of the program which requires payment then > don't post it. > Otherwise the policy should be if it is posted on Usenet it should be > free to use without restrictions on the use (in the sense of payments). It doesn't work that way. Shareware (and derivants) are distinct from public domain in that the author holds a copyright on his work and the stipulations on that copyright aren't subject to how the program is distributed. If someone gives you a copyrighted, prerecorded cassette tape you aren't legally absolved from obeying federal copyright laws concerning duplication and distribution of copies of that tape. Even though the tape may not carry an explicit FBI "WARNING! WARNING!" about duplication it's still illegal and, theoretically, prosecutable. This is one of the grey areas in the policy here concerning Shareware software. It's all copyrighted and unless the author explicitly releases the user from the obligation to pay for it, s/he still reserves the right to demand payment for it's use, whether it be 21-days hence in a "trial period" or not. In other words, it's all technically commercial software unless it has a release with words to the effect, "if you like this software, money would be appreciated... if not, that's okay too". This is a dicey one for Rahul to call. Personally, I think the debate would be better served by determining what's in the best interests of the Net users balanced against the overhead suffered by the network in carrying it. -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) (03/19/89)
From article <592@marob.MASA.COM>, by manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes): > ... > I've not seen any Shareware programs that specify a legal license period > prior to registration but, then again, I'm not a Shareware maven... LCG-remind, which I got from this net, says in its documentation that "If you use it for more than 30 days, you must pay the registration fee of $12.95." There is legal stuff in the preceding paragraph that says this is an agreement under copyright. Rahul, did you know that when you distributed it? That is, did you look far enough into the documentation to find that statement? Are you willing to examine with that much care the documentation of every program you post? M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Atul Kacker) (03/19/89)
In article <2038@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> davis@ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) writes: > >But some of the commercial stuff that says "distribute freely" is DEMOS: >crippled stuff not intended to be useful, intended only to sell the product. I agree. Demos that are crippled should not be posted. Especially demos that can be obtained from the author/developer/distributor by just asking for it or sending a disk. Like Al said, demos like PSPICE fall in this category. I don't agree with 15 part Moria and Hack postings but that's just a personal bias. And If I have one Unix rm clone, I see no reason for seeing so many of these utilities posted that do essentially the same thing. -- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@uhura.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-cc!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/20/89)
In article <592@marob.MASA.COM> manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) writes:
...a bunch of crap I have deleted (flames are most welcome).
All members of ASP should be taken out and shot, or better yet,
boiled in oil. I wish to God this thing called "shareware" had never
been invented. I see so many "Public Domain" sources that end up
being shareware I want to scream. After looking around and
downloading a software package (costs me money just to do this, phone
charges, CIS charges etc.) I then discover I must pay for the software
I was lead to believe was PD. It goes double when I send away for a
set of floppies and find out the same thing. Gee, just had a thought,
maybe I can sue for false advertising on the part of the
distributors (Hey Compu$erve, like a lawsuit? :-)
If I had either the money or the power, I would halt this sh*t right
now. Make some law that requires any distributor of shareware to
notify possible recipients that what he is paying for is not "PD" but,
in fact, you must pay another charge to keep and use it. In addition,
I would have CIS services like Compu$erve banned from distributing
shareware, at least separate what is PD and what is shareware (I'd
never waste time in the shareware libraries).
My biggest complaint is that PD listings include shareware and I've
been burned too many times to take it any longer. Next time I see a
PD listing, I'm going to burn IT instead. The only alternative is to
treat all shareware showing up in PD forums as "PD" and ignore the
"beg screens".
Maybe I should lobby in c.b.i.p.d etc. for NO shareware
unless its listed as such in the heading (subject line maybe).
I wonder what RD would say about this, listening?
The bottom line, commercial software is still commercial software,
it does not belong on Usenet. Announcements of the existence of such
software and the way to get it is ok.
Now where did I put that asbestos jumpsuit? There it is. Ok I'm
ready, let her rip!!
Art Dederick
...!hplabs!felix!art
(714)966-3618dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/20/89)
DEMOs versus FULLY FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMS
Suppose there is a terrific program that is submitted to
comp.binaries.ibm.pc. It is fully functional, but the license says
that you may not use it beyond a trial period of 15 days without
paying. (But it lets you extend the trial period a reasonable amount
of time under "extenuating circumstances", leaving those to your
judgement.)
Another program, submitted at the same time, is terrific too. It's a
demo, but the only thing that makes it a demo is that 15 days from the
date of first use it will stop working (until you make a fresh copy).
The license says that when you call their toll-free number and tell
them your credit card number, or just say that you will be soon be
mailing them a check, you will get a secret code that will unlock the
program so it will always work. The license does *not* say that
payment is required; it just says "this is a demo version that can be
converted to the non-demo version..." and explains how.
Should both, or none, or one (which?) be posted?
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edudavis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) (03/20/89)
In article <6236@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >the license says that you may not use it beyond a trial period of 15 days >without paying. (But it lets you extend the trial period a reasonable >amount of time under "extenuating circumstances", leaving those to your >judgement.) The moderator's judgement says it is ok to use forever, for free. Is the moderator willing to make this judgement, for the world? If I were moderating, I would not. Likewise, I would not rely on such a product to operate the net. >the only thing that makes it a demo is that 15 days from the >date of first use it will stop working. >The license says that when you call their toll-free number ........ A commercial firm is using the net as a free distribution medium, saving the expense of doing it through the normal channels, giving them an unfair advantage, at the net's expense. Let commercial firms pay their own way. This one is especially offensive. Also, how does this work? If the method is more sophisticated than checking the exe file date stamp, or expiring on a pre-programmed date, they are using some of the same mechanisms that make Trojans, Viruses, etc. I would reject for this alone, unless the mechanism was well documented, but that is giving away how to defeat it. I have no problem with offering additional services, at a cost, such as source, technical support, updates, libraries, etc. provided the posting is useful as is, and is primarily intended to be so. Also, it is ok to have a copyright, to declare ownership, and to prevent others from commercially exploiting the work. Disclaimer: a few years ago, I used to own a software business. We did not use such distribution at public expense. We did not sell repackaged public domain software. (The present owners still work the same way.) The (more successful) competetion did, and still does. Crippled versions of their products, essentially PC ports of public domain software, have appeared in c.b.i.p. The postings were done by someone not connected with the company, as far as I know.
rbono@necis.UUCP (Rich Bono) (03/20/89)
Somehow I missed the original post but in reference to: > From article by dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi): > > As moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc I am supposed to draw the line > > somewhere between what is suitable for posting and what is not. > > > > I am intending to draw the line between commercial software and free > > software as follows: > > > > Ok to post: Software that does not impose a legal > > requirement on the user to pay for it. > > > > Not OK to post: Software that does impose a legal > > requirement on the user to pay for it. > > > > Sample license (call this example A), not OK to post: > > > > "If you use this program beyond a trial period you are required > > to pay $x." > > > > Sample license (example B), OK to post: > > > > "If you find this software useful, a payment of $x is requested." > > > As a poster of some of the questionable shareware (DOSGATE), I thought I would give my two cents worth... The reason for posting my creation to USENET is to allow the software to be used by people who need it. I discourage Pirating of software (or any other stealing)... So by placing my creation on an obviosly (SP?) open, and non-controled environment (meaning, unable to control who gets a copy and how many copies are made), I am in effect, giving away the software. I have a statement in my software that is similar to the following: "This product is a user supported software product, and as such is NOT free software. You are allowed to use this product for a limited period of time. After the trial period you must register with the author. If you send $xx or more, your name will be placed on the update list...." Note that I do NOT specify how long the trial period is. I require the regstration (and fee) to ward off those midnight calls on how to use the software, and from a user that wants me to customize the stuff for HIM/HER. My software is NOT cripple-ware... it does NOT contain limiting routines to force you to register... In my documentation I (usually) mention that it is ok to give your friends a copy, but if you give out more than 5, you must register with the author, this is to protect my commercial rights... you know, those guys who fill disks with "public domain" software and sell it for THEIR profit! In effect I am saying: If you like it, and want to support it, send some money. If not, then consider yourself to be still in the 'trial' period. If the NET wants to limit itself from this type of software, then that is fine... But I for one would like to be able to make the choice as to whether I want to pay for something or not. If receiving a copy of something that tries to force one to pay after a limited time. If you were responcible for all stuff like this, a LOT of people would be requiring you to pay for that piece of junk mail that you received in the US-mail... in one way or another... If you don't want something or don't want to pay for it, you return it... It is NOT reasonable to "return" software... (when electronically distributed), so you just stop using it, erase it (if you choose) from YOUR disks and never owe a penny. However, if you use it, and would like to promote future up-dates, then help the author along by letting him know. Even a kind letter would be appreciated! On the other hand, I VERY MUCH respect the job of a moderator. He does a thankless job, that is not easy to do, and takes up a lot of time. Because of human nature, we tend to complain when we don't like something, yet we are silent when things are going well (when is the last time YOU honked you horn, leaned out of your car window and told the driver next to you that you admire his driving skills, and that more drivers should be like him, and thanked him/her for setting a good example?). On this note: *** Thank you to Rahul for putting up with us all, and for the work you do *** and please help us to come up with a workable solution that allows authors to retain full commercial rights to their products, and allows users to pay for a product that they want to support, without sounding like begging for money! Authors should keep in mind how a program is distributed. If an author does not want his creation to be spread all over the world, then he should not allow his software to be distributed electronically... require a user to mail disks, or get a copy from the distribution point. We all realize that USENET, and the millions of telephone BBS's out there spread software. Good software spreads, bad stuff dies. So if someone could recomend a better "license agreement", that allows the author to protect his commercial rights (I don't want someone ELSE profiting from my stuff), then please let the authors know! In the meantime, I resort to sending a few copies out one-at-a-time... This is time consuming to me! Time that I could (and would rather) spend creating new software, or enhancing a earlier creation. (TIME = BITS) Rich Bono, NM1D -- /**************************************************************************\ * Rich Bono (NM1D) If I could only 'C' forever!! rbono@necis.nec.com * * (508) 635-6303 NEC Information Systems NM1D @ WB1DSW-1 * \**************************************************************************/
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (03/21/89)
In article <2038@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> davis@ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) writes: >But some of the commercial stuff that says "distribute freely" is DEMOS: >crippled stuff not intended to be useful, intended only to sell the product. > >NO demos. NO free commercial advertising. Yes! A much better criteria. Crippleware is not useful *except* as advertising! Commercial software with a "free evaluation period" is not nearly as bad -- you still only have a moral obligation to pay since no license/purchase agreement was ever signed. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply (I do *register* the shareware programs I use)
marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) (03/21/89)
From article <6236@bsu-cs.UUCP>, by dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi): > DEMOs versus FULLY FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMS > > Suppose there is a terrific program that is submitted to > comp.binaries.ibm.pc. It is fully functional, but the license says > that you may not use it beyond a trial period of 15 days without > paying.... > > Another program, submitted at the same time, is terrific too. It's a > demo, but the only thing that makes it a demo is that 15 days from the > date of first use it will stop working ..... I wonder whether we've gone off on the wrong track. I'm reminded of the question of whether "amateur athletics" is really amateur. Do we want to distribute only what amateur programmers produce? An amateur programmer is either a student, or an adult using his employer's resources, or a hobbyist. They don't need payment. Shareware is professional. Note that one group we are worrying about calls itself the "Association of Shareware Professionals." No matter how they write their readme files, they are in fact professionals, and distributing their product is free advertising. I don't see how we can try to set precise conditions on the terms an author sets for use and distribution, until we decide what class of software we want to see on the net. If we want shareware I think we have to accept it on the professionals' terms. If we want only freeware, then I think we have to reject all shareware. Maybe we're really trying to define a legal distinction between shareware and freeware. But what will we do after we figure it out? M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/21/89)
As many of you know this debate is going on (in a nastier way) in other parts of the net. I think the principle is very simple. It should be posted if net readers and admins benefit more than the cost of posting it. How much the author of the software benefits, from 0 to a megabuck, is not important. Do net people want it -- that is the only question to ask. The only complication on this issue is whether we should consider whether the benefit of the net people will be legal/moral or not. In this case, the consent of the shareware authors does matter. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (03/21/89)
In article <2971@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >That is a tough question. On one hand one might argue that it is up to >the readers to decide if they want to pay for shareware. The sad comment >is that we correctly expect most people to use the shareware and not pay >for it. But you're making an assumption here that hasn't really been tested legally, and in the case of Usenet may not be ethically valid as well. According to US law, if someone mails me unsolicited merchandise along with a demand for payment, I may disregard the demand for payment and keep the merchandise and use it as I see fit. Are the shareware people aware of this? Usenet does not work the same way as a standard bulletin board. Even with standard bulletin boards, the shareware folks, it could be argued, are on shaky ground unless they have the agreement of the "sysop" together with a way of informing users beforehand that what they are downloading is shareware and there is a required fee. (As to what the real law is, no one knows, lawyer or not. There hasn't been a court case yet that I know of). So here I am, running a Usenet node and my company is paying phone bills and UUNET fees to move this stuff around. I contend that any shareware I am sent is unsolicited merchandise. Given this, I reject any notion that I can be compelled to pay for its use. So what if the poster of the software is not the owner? Then the owner's rights have been violated severely by the act of posting, since a lot of users are going to use the software without paying. So Rahul's position is perfectly appropriate -- he's basically protecting the net from all these legal hassles by refusing to post shareware that demands a required fee. He's also protecting the owners of the shareware. There's also the ethical question. Lots of sites are paying big phone bills to move this stuff around. Why should they be forced to subsidize shareware authors without their permission? That is, thanks to the well-connected sites, tens of thousands of potential customers are reached. Without this subsidy, the shareware author would not make as much money. So as for Brad's question: >Should the moderator pre-judge the morals of the readers? The better question is: should the moderator risk a bunch of legal hassles and endless flame wars about whether shareware conditions are legally enforceable or ethically valid, or avoid all of this mess by simply refusing to post software that demands a mandatory contribution? -- -- Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (03/21/89)
Like Brad Templeton, I too disagree with Rahul's proposed "no commercial postings" policy (i.e., no posting of shareware with mandatory fees for use beyond an evaluation period). I would prefer something along the lines of Brad's proposal: a sort of "utility criterion," though maybe "value criterion" would be a more appropriate term. In this scheme, the software should be somehow "worth" the amount requested/required. Certainly I think it should be "worth" "something." Thus, a rolodex program with a mandatory usage fee of $1000 is probably not a good candidate, nor is/was the multi-megabyte, but limited functionality demo program that was posted during the no moderator hiatus. Procomm, however, which has - in my view - a reasonable mandatory fee, is a good candidate for posting (I'm using a bought-and-paid-for Procomm Plus, so you net.police.shareware.violation.enforcement types just stop slavering over your F'lame - excuse me, F'ollowup - keys). The no-mandatory- fee-that-I-know-of Pibterm version 4 is also a good candidate. I realize that it's tempting to flame me over the subjectivity of the "value" in "value criterion," but please resist the temptation. Instead, consider supporting the proposal and contribute meaning- fully to establishing an appropriate policy. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.)
dmurdoch@watstat.waterloo.edu (Duncan Murdoch) (03/21/89)
Perhaps we should start a new group for shareware: comp.binaries.forsale :-). Seriously though, I think Brad was right: if in Rahul's judgment, there'll be a net benefit (pun intended) from posting, then he should post. To aid his judgment, I'll add that I've found there's very little shareware that's worth the asking price, and I tend to avoid it. So if there are N comp.binaries.ibm.pc readers, the largest possible group that shareware postings could interest is N-1 of them, while freeware may be interesting to all N. Duncan Murdoch
spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) (03/21/89)
In article <2987@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: > >According to US law, if someone mails me unsolicited merchandise along with >a demand for payment, I may disregard the demand for payment and keep the >merchandise and use it as I see fit. Not exactly -- when an offeree (one who is offered goods), with reasonable opportunity to reject services or goods, accepts the benefit of them although the person knows or should know that they are offered with the expectation of compensation, that offeree is obligated to pay for them. (Restatement, Contracts Ch. 72 (1) (a) (1932)) (see also Id. at Ch. 72(2)). In other words, if someone gives you unsolicited goods expecting to be paid for them , you must pay for them or not accept them. The exception is goods received by US Mail which are covered by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which states that if you receive unsolicited goods by mail, you don't have to pay for them and can use them freely. (U.S.C. Par. 3009 (approved Aug. 12, 1970)). Needless to say UseNet is not covered by the Postal reorganization act, and therefore if someone posts Shareware stating clearly that if you want to use it, you have to pay for it, s/he is legally making an offer and you, if you accept it (by using the program), are obliged to pay for it. There should be no question in anyone's mind that if you actively download, uudecode, uncompress, or use a program that explicitly requires consideration you must pay. +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ | Joel Spolsky | bitnet: spolsky@yalecs.bitnet uucp: ...!yale!spolsky | | | internet: spolsky@cs.yale.edu voicenet: 203-436-1483 | +----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+ #include <disclaimer.h>
olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (olsen) (03/21/89)
I really can't see how shareware authors can issue a legally valid demand for money from users, at least in the USA. A US copyright holder has an exclusive right to copy, distribute, modify, and perform the copyrighted work. He has no other control over the use of a legally-made copy. Because of this, software distributors usually seek to execute a license agreement with the user, restricting his use of the software. With large programs they actually do it right: getting the user's signature on a license document. With small programs, they pretend that opening the 'shink-wrap' executes a license agreement. With shareware, how can a software distributor bind the user? A comparison between shareware and GNU freeware is instructive. The GNU license controls copying and distribution, but allows unrestricted use. Restrictive shareware seeks to control use, while allowing unrestricted copying and distribution. Since copyright confers control of copying and distribution, but not use, the GNU license is probably valid, while shareware demands are very questionable.
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/21/89)
From article <88151@felix.UUCP>, by art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick): > All members of ASP should be taken out and shot, or better yet, > boiled in oil. I wish to God this thing called "shareware" had never > been invented. I see so many "Public Domain" sources that end up > being shareware I want to scream. Conspicuously absent in your message was the name of even one such Shareware program. I'm in ASP, know the members and know their software and haven't got a clue what you're referring to. Please specify, or else someone please open a window to vent the warm air in here. My software, while influenced by many others, is my own. There's not a single other BBS remotely like it, public domain, Shareware or commercial. Other ASP authors may have more traditional wares, or clones, but Shareware is >copyrighted< and, as such, was never public domain. If you find one something you suspect, contact the Federal Copyright Office and register a complaint. All ASP members produce Shareware programs BUT not all Shareware authors are in ASP. Applicants to ASP have their software evaluated by a committee to (1) determine that it's an original work, (2) that the author owns it, (3) that the work is of a sufficient caliber of professionalism and quality to (3a) bother asking money for it and (3b) fairly represent ASP's professionalism and (4) that the author's program and documentation meets ASP standards. You can rage on about Shareware and, in some cases, you might be justified in doing so. That was precisely the reason why ASP was formed. There are a lot of charlatans out there hanging up the "Shareware" logo and ripping off consumers, which affects all of us. > After looking around and > downloading a software package (costs me money just to do this, phone > charges, CIS charges etc.) I then discover I must pay for the software > I was lead to believe was PD. How were you led to believe it was PD? How do you know it's not a pirated commercial program or a virus or a piece of crow meat completely unsuitable for the task you grabbed it for? The fact is, you don't. Would you rather spend 20 minutes downloading a PD hard disk organizer that trashes your ST4096 directories or one that works (because it's passed muster by ASP) and requests a modest registration fee? Besides, if you're paying CIS $$ to download programs rather than calling your local BBSes for free, who should you blame for that? > It goes double when I send away for a > set of floppies and find out the same There are also fly-by-night mail order houses. If it's an ASP signatory, like Nelson Ford's "Public Software Library", their catalog spells out quite clearly that a particular program is Shareware and how much the registration fee is. You're just dealing with the wrong houses. How would you propose to denote a Shareware program listing on a BBS when an author can't even guarantee that people will maintain the distributed filename of the program? By right, the distributing site should be required to tell users that. But I imagine if your law ever passed, sysops would just post an announcement that any software found on the BBS is presumed to be Shareware unless otherwise noted. > The bottom line, commercial software is still commercial software, > it does not belong on Usenet. Announcements of the existence of such > software and the way to get it is ok. A good point. Shareware >is< commercial software, no argument. Authors who distribute such programs intend to make money from them, whether they have a 21-day licensing period or meekly ask for spare change somewhere in the back of the manual. The decision on whether or not this kind of commercial software is suitable for Usenet is not mine to make, fortunately. But the crack about being "a little bit pregnant" seems to apply if you're going to have ANY of it here, you know, which would include anything from Vern Buerg's LIST to PKZIP to PCWRITE. -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/21/89)
In article <6236@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >DEMOs versus FULLY FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMS >Should both, or none, or one (which?) be posted? Nothing that says you must pay for it, either shareware or demos (fully functional or not). As I have said before, commercial software does not belong on Usenet in any form! Soliciting for contributions is ok. Let me ask you something Rahul, do you like making other people money and getting nothing in return? This is what you are doing when you post shareware or demos. In addition, think of what the supporting sites would do if they were to discover that something they thought was a free information exchange media was being used for commercial purposes and the cost they incure is supporting some other business. I know of a software directory here that would shut it down right now. Art Dederick ...!hplabs!felix!art
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (03/22/89)
In article <6236@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >DEMOs versus FULLY FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMS >Should both, or none, or one (which?) be posted? >[...] It is fully functional, but the license says >that you may not use it beyond a trial period of 15 days without >paying. (But it lets you extend the trial period a reasonable amount >of time under "extenuating circumstances", leaving those to your >judgement.) I would post it (of course by your proposed standards, it could not be posted). The user should be able to decide for his/her self whether to 1) toss it, 2) pay up, 3) use it without paying. If there actually is a legal obligation to pay, then I would be reluctant to post since the program is strictly commercial. I can go to my local Egghead and get a 14 day trial period on any commercial program, and some stores around here have rental commercial software for evaluation. >[...] but the only thing that makes it a demo is that 15 days from the >date of first use it will stop working (until you make a fresh copy). >[when you pay] you will get a secret code that will unlock the >program so it will always work. The license does *not* say that >payment is required; it just says "this is a demo version that can be >converted to the non-demo version..." and explains how. I would post this too. It really is fully functional, and the necessary re-copying is actually less troublesome than the typical shareware's "beg screen". What I object to (and have seen): 1. Demo disks that do nothing but let you step through a canned demonstration. 2. Programs intentionally crippled by only allowing a small amount of data. 3. "Word Processors" that don't let you save your text. 4. Old versions being distributed with fewer features. 5. A form creation program that comes only with a generic printer driver. The real version will use the printers graphic line drawing ability. 6. Documentation so sparse (and missing "help" screens) that one cannot deturmine the programs capabilities. Not only are this programs worthless as is, but they don't let you evaluate the product so you can decide if you want to pay! (In fact, now days I use mostly commercial software, yet 8-9 years ago, with CP/M, most of my utilities, languages, com software, was public domain.) I'm sorry, but I feel a FLAME comming on..... Not to name names, but I received a glossy mailing from a shareware company whose name reminds one of something found at a supermarket checkout. They advertised a number of very interesting products, and gave a BBoard number to get copies. Well I called and downloaded most of their offerings, only to find that they were *all* old versions missing the major advertised features. Well I don't use any of *their* products anymore, nor would I consider buying the *real* versions! (FLAME off) Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
dillon@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ian Dillon) (03/22/89)
In article <1291@hounx.ATT.COM> marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: > >Do we want to distribute only what amateur programmers produce? An >amateur programmer is either a student, or an adult using his >employer's resources, or a hobbyist. They don't need payment. I don't believe this guy! Mr. Brilliant has displayed the perfect example of industrial arrogance. To start off, why shouldn't a student or hobbyist be reimbursed for her/his efforts? If the program is genuine, and proves useful, then they "do need payment". Does a person have to work in a big industrial complex, to qualify as a "professional"? If so, what happens when top notch programmers decide to go back to school on a part-time basis? I'm sure there are many MBA candidates who would have a tough time swallowing your comments. > ...... If we want shareware I think we >have to accept it on the professionals' terms. In other words, software distribution should be exclusive to industrial "professionals". Wouldn't this be a crock? The main goal of the net is to provide open communication for anyone who has access to it. Personally, I think if anyone has a good program to sell or distribute freely, then the net serves as a great opportunity to do so. Viva' la hobbyist! Ian
mms@sordid.Sun.COM (Michael Silverstein) (03/22/89)
In article <2979@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: *> *> It should be posted if net readers and admins benefit more than the cost *> of posting it. How much the author of the software benefits, from 0 *> to a megabuck, is not important. Do net people want it -- that is the *> only question to ask. *> Exactly right. The moderator should assess the utility of the software, and post it accordingly, in conformance with the copyright. Proper payment is the responsibility of the individual receiving and/ or using it, not the net or the moderator. Whether it's a giveaway, a profit maker, or anything else should not concern us. *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* | /\/\ike Silverstein | This can't be deja vu. Things are more like | | sun!mms -or- mms@sun.com | they are now, than they've ever been before! | *-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/22/89)
And more to the point, what people sell when they sell software is not bits in a file, but the right to run them. So if somebody gives you a series of bits on a disk that happen to be Lotus 1-2-3 or PC-Write, you do indeed have the bits, and you don't have to return them if you don't want them -- but you haven't paid for the right to run them. Most shareware authors licence a limited right-to-run, ie. the right to try the program out for a while to see if you like it. All commercial packages sell you both the bits on the disk and the right to run them. Nobody would buy the packages if they didn't come with the right to run. PC-SIG sells you just the data, and not the right to run it. That right is granted only by the author. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/22/89)
Most people seem to agree that the real issue is one of benefit to the
net versus cost to the net. If it has widespread benefit, it should be
posted.
But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the
question is:
Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit?
I'm not making a judgement here. I'm asking a question.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edubobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (03/22/89)
-*> It should be posted if net readers and admins benefit more than the cost -*> of posting it. How much the author of the software benefits, from 0 -*> to a megabuck, is not important. Do net people want it -- that is the -*> only question to ask. - -The moderator should assess the utility of the software, and post it -accordingly, in conformance with the copyright. I think I agree with these sentiments; but given the number of variant (read "buggy"?) CRC programs around, I shudder to think of the effort that will be required to get an algorithm for whether a package is worth posting or not. Just what is crippleware? Clearly LIST isn't; clearly a text editor that cannot write a file is. What about a "demo" terminal emulator that offers to enable data rates greater than 1200bps if you register it? People who only have 1200bps modems may be delighted to use this thing for free; an archive site with a 9600bps link probably thinks it's fatally crippled. Since I think Rahul's idea will be technically difficult to implement, I feel that philosophically any criteria should err on the side of distribution; we're often too willing to say "This thing is worthless to ME, so it should be denied to EVERYBODY."
everett@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) (03/22/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes... >It should be posted if net readers and admins benefit more than the cost >of posting it. How much the author of the software benefits, from 0 >to a megabuck, is not important. Do net people want it -- that is the >only question to ask. >Brad Templeton Thank you, Brad, for stating my position so simply and elegantly. I feel that Rahul's attitude is "the more FREE software, the better." (Please, correct me if I'm wrong Rahul!) I don't disagree with that attitude (quite the opposite, I LIKE getting things for free!), but not everyone wants to give away their work for free. (Why do you "accept" a paycheck each month, Rahul?) Now, I'm NOT saying that you are against Shareware, as I'm sure you're not. But I DO think that your attitude about free software might be swaying your opinion about Shareware in c.b.i.p, since not allowing Shareware might encourage some authors to go ahead and post their work as Freeware. Yes, I've read your arguments about the host sites paying for the "free advertising and distribution" of these Shareware products, but if the companies that pay for these host systems were really upset about it, wouldn't they (and their sys admins) have screamed bloody murder before now? There has been an uproar over abuses in non-moderated groups. That's what the moderator is for, to screen things like the SPICE "demo", and the MEAN-18 rip-off. The moderator's job is not to prevent access to tools that we engineers use (and sometimes NEED) to go our jobs. I'm sure that my employers (the mythical "they") would much rather pay the small phone/computer fee to transmit Shareware programs around the net compared to the high phone/engineer time that would be used by having 10 to 20 engineers constantly calling up BBS's to download programs. Right now, they use one phone call to get a program into the site system, from which it can be distributed (virtually free) to anyone who wants it. Without distribution of Shareware over the net, we'd have multiple phone calls per engineer to find and download the same software. So, in summary, my vote is for you, Rahul, to continue your excellent job of moderating the group, by filtering out the junk, the out-right pirated stuff, and the crippleware/free-advertising pieces; but let the rest through, whether or not it's Shareware! Everett Kaser !hplabs!hp-pcd!everett everett%hpcvlx@hplabs.hp.com wants/needs it for
ejd@caen.engin.umich.edu (Edward J Driscoll) (03/22/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the >question is: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? > >I'm not making a judgement here. I'm asking a question. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi > ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu I fail to see how this will help you decide whether or not to post a particular piece of software, as you have no way of knowing in advance how many people will use it illegally (or legally, for that matter). I don't believe that answers to this question will provide you with a practical decision-making mechanism. I can see merit in both sides of this debate, but I think it is important to propose plans which (1) protect the net and its users and administrators from legal hassles and liabilities, and (2) provide the moderator with a *precise* set of criteria. Rahul's original proposal (anything which legally requires payment at some point) is precise. Proposals about relative demand and utility are vague and discretionary, and I would reject them on those grounds alone, were I the moderator (thank heavens I'm not). -- Ed Driscoll The University of Michigan ejd@caen.engin.umich.edu
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/22/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? There is no answer. There are two forces I can't reconcile. One is the fact that the shareware author lets out shareware expecting large scale piracy. In fact, if the author is asked, they will usually say they are willing to tolerate exposure to extra pirates to get exposure to extra honest users. So on one hand, since it's with (in a very roundabout way) the permission of the author, it's acceptable to consider this. But the roundabout way is too roundabout. The shareware author accepts the high probability of piracy, but certainly doesn't like it. I can't condone considering illegal use as a benefit because that contributes to making the probabilty of piracy high. But if we follow that, we're really going against the author's pragmatic wishes. Ugh. No answer. Infinite loop. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/22/89)
From article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP>, by dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi): > But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the > question is: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? > > I'm not making a judgement here. I'm asking a question. A benefit to whom? Downloading and using Shareware isn't illegal. It's what Shareware authors want people to do, after all. Free distribution of Shareware is not only completely legal, it's encouraged. It would only be a conflict with the author's copyright if the distribution archive was modified in some way contrary to the author's wishes. What the user chooses to do with the software when s/he decides to make it a habit really isn't the concern of the net, or shouldn't be. When the software is downloaded, regardless of what the license stipulates, it's perfectly legal. Is it of any more benefit to anyone when net.terrorist downloads a PD wargames dialer to break into computer systems or a PD debugger that can be used to install a virus in another piece of software? -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
everett@hpcvlx.HP.COM (Everett Kaser) (03/23/89)
/ dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) / 12:27 pm Mar 21, 1989 / >But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the >question is: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? > >I'm not making a judgement here. I'm asking a question. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi It is not for you or me to worry about 'illegal use of shareware', EXCEPT for our OWN illegal use of shareware. Shareware, by definition, is free to distribute, and the net does that amply well, and LEGALLY. What people who have access to the net, and download the Shareware, do with it, legally or otherwise, is only between them and the author of the program (and the legal system of whatever government they suffer under). So, in answer to your question, 'illegal use of shareware' should not be 'considered' at all, unless YOU are the one who is illegally using it, or YOU are the author of a package that is being illegally used. (By 'YOU', I don't imply 'you', Rahul, but the generic 'YOU' :-).) ('You' understand? :-) Everett Kaser !hplabs!hp-pcd!everett everett%hpcvlx@hplabs.hp.com
marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) (03/23/89)
From article <3529@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, by dillon@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Ian Dillon): > In article <1291@hounx.ATT.COM> marty1@hounx.ATT.COM (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: >> >>Do we want to distribute only what amateur programmers produce? An >>amateur programmer is either a student, or an adult using his >>employer's resources, or a hobbyist. They don't need payment. > > I don't believe this guy! Mr. Brilliant has displayed the perfect > example of industrial arrogance. To start off, why shouldn't a > student or hobbyist be reimbursed for her/his efforts? .... Please calm down. I agree with you. A student is allowed to be reimbursed for his/her efforts, and in that case, he/she becomes a professional. Justin Boyan (author of Boyan Communications) is a student and a professional. He uses the money from his programming for his education. No problem. > .... If the > program is genuine, and proves useful, then they "do need payment". Some do, some don't. If they don't ask for payment, I assume they don't need payment, so I call them amateurs. Let me try to explain. I don't mean all students and hobbyists are amateurs. I mean a lot of amateurs are hobbyists or students. OK? > Does a person have to work in a big industrial complex, to qualify > as a "professional"? .... Of course not. You qualify as a professional by asking for payment. > ...... If so, what happens when top notch programmers > decide to go back to school on a part-time basis? I'm sure there are > many MBA candidates who would have a tough time swallowing your comments. I would agree that whatever they do the other part of their time, if they get paid for it, is professional. No problem. >> ...... If we want shareware I think we >>have to accept it on the professionals' terms. > > In other words, software distribution should be exclusive to industrial > "professionals". Wouldn't this be a crock? ...... All I really meant by that remark is that anybody who asks for money is a professional. Then we have to decide whether we want to distribute professional products, or only amateur products. Amateur products can be good too, they're just free. The only difference between shareware and shrinkwrapware is that the copyright owner allows (and wants) us to distribute shareware. Whether we actually do is up to us. > ..... The main goal of the net is > to provide open communication for anyone who has access to it... Including free distribution for shareware? OK, if that's your opinion, I respect that. I might even agree with it, but I don't pay the costs of distribution. That's the problem - we, the users, have to be careful about setting the rules, because we're not the payers. > ..... Personally, > I think if anyone has a good program to sell or distribute freely, then > the net serves as a great opportunity to do so. > > Viva' la hobbyist! Sure. No question, the hobbyist should get free time on the net. The question is only whether the professional, defined simple as someone who wants money for his/her work, should get free time. Sorry if I didn't get my point across clearly the first time. Hope this helps. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
tdavis@enlog.Wichita.NCR.COM (Tim Davis) (03/23/89)
The net world has missed the point of my followup on the egrep posting which started (or re-started) this discussion. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE SOFTWARE IS FREE, REQUIRES PAYMENT (OR REQUIRES YOU TO WANT B. T. REMOVED AS MODERATOR FOR R.H.F. :-) The issue is interpretation of distribution requirments. The moderator should simply make SURE that distribution requirements are met. If a file is not present SPELLING out those requirements then DON'T post it. It should be the AUTHOR's job to make those requirements as clear as possible to make interpretation as easy as possible. FINAL NOTE: the egrep .arc file did not include the verbatim copy of the GNU general public license. EGREP ISSUE CLOSED. -- ...tIM dAVIS (Tim.Davis@Wichita.NCR.COM) DISCLAIMER: These are my own opinions and not those of my employer.
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (03/23/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? It depends on your politics: If you take the liberal tack as given in the "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" series--"property is theft", and therefore whatever you can steal, you own--then this is not only okay, but to be encouraged. If you are conservative, then everything not required is forbidden and this constitutes a terrible crime against private property. Perhaps the more realistic question is: Are software licenses on shareware enforcible? (Last I heard, it was questionable that commercial "shrink-wrap" licenses could be enforced, and that's a *much* clearer issue.) In the end--who benefits? and who pays the cost? If the benefit is great enough to cover the cost, then the practice will continue. ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | Money is the root of all Analyst, Pacific*Bell | evil--and a man *needs* 415-645-7708 | roots. whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (03/23/89)
In article <2987@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > All commercial packages sell you both the bits on the disk and the > right to run them. Nobody would buy the packages if they didn't come > with the right to run. I believe this is in error--the standard "shrink-wrap" licenses explicitly *do* *not* sell you the bits--they only license you to use them. This is where they will try to tell you that they still own the program and you have their permission to use one copy. ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | Money is the root of all Analyst, Pacific*Bell | evil--and a man *needs* 415-645-7708 | roots. whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/23/89)
In article <595@marob.MASA.COM> manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) writes: >Conspicuously absent in your message was the name of even one such >Shareware program. I'm in ASP, know the members and know their software >and haven't got a clue what you're referring to. Please specify, or else >someone please open a window to vent the warm air in here. Since I have been burned before, I no longer seek "free" software through that source. It has been about a year or more since I logged into a BBS due to this problem. I don't know what the current status of these BBS's are but back then the short descriptions did not lead me to believe I was getting shareware. Also I was not even aware of ASP until I saw a reference here on the net couple months ago. Sorry to include ASP members in the barrel but you know what they say about one apple. >All ASP members produce Shareware programs BUT not all Shareware >authors are in ASP. Applicants to ASP have their software evaluated by > ... >and documentation meets ASP standards. You can rage on about Shareware >and, in some cases, you might be justified in doing so. That was >precisely the reason why ASP was formed. There are a lot of charlatans >out there hanging up the "Shareware" logo and ripping off consumers, >which affects all of us. This seems to be the crux of the problem. Where ASP members take great pains to do the right thing, its these others that ruin it. >How were you led to believe it was PD? How do you know it's not a >pirated commercial program or a virus or a piece of crow meat completely >unsuitable for the task you grabbed it for? The fact is, you don't. >Would you rather spend 20 minutes downloading a PD hard disk organizer >that trashes your ST4096 directories or one that works (because it's >passed muster by ASP) and requests a modest registration fee? Viruses and the like are a different problem. When I inspected the listing or description files for software, nothing was said that a specific program was shareware. This is the beef, not viruses (another problem alltogether). >Besides, if you're paying CIS $$ to download programs rather than >calling your local BBSes for free, who should you blame for that? I blame the poor state of the local BBS's. When I was able to get on, after many attempts, and after many hours of looking around, typically I would find little to interest me. What little I would find turned out to be shareware in many cases. The description of the program would not say one word about shareware. >There are also fly-by-night mail order houses. If it's an ASP signatory, >like Nelson Ford's "Public Software Library", their catalog spells out >quite clearly that a particular program is Shareware and how much the >registration fee is. You're just dealing with the wrong houses. Do you consider Austin Code Works a fly-by-night mail order house? I got some data disks from them and they turned out to be shareware. I do have to say this was more than two years ago, never bought anything from them since. They may be beter now, I don't know. >How would you propose to denote a Shareware program listing on a BBS >when an author can't even guarantee that people will maintain the >distributed filename of the program? By right, the distributing site Since I have boycotted BBS's for some time, I have no proposed solution to this problem. Unless I can find a well run BBS, I expect I wil never login to one again. >A good point. Shareware >is< commercial software, no argument. Authors >who distribute such programs intend to make money from them, whether >they have a 21-day licensing period or meekly ask for spare change >somewhere in the back of the manual. The decision on whether or not >this kind of commercial software is suitable for Usenet is not mine to >make, fortunately. But the crack about being "a little bit pregnant" >seems to apply if you're going to have ANY of it here, you know, which >would include anything from Vern Buerg's LIST to PKZIP to PCWRITE. So in my opinion, none of this software should be posted. If the author wants to make money, do it on a commercial medium like real software houses do. If ASP is that good, then ASP should provide advertising etc. to push some software. I would have no objection if a newsgroup was created for shareware announcments (comp.announce.share). The articles could include a location to obtain the software and what it does and the requested price. This will also let ASP and members know who is obtaining the software. The concept of "try it before you pay for it" is good I just want to see it kept were commercial software belongs and out of the way of "freeware". If I have stepped on any consciensious ASP member's toes that are NOT the problem, I apologize. But from my point of view, I didn't know there were any good ones. You guys need to police shareware better. Maybe lobby for some legislation to make it a crime when someone claims to be shareware (not following the rules) but is in fact just a rip off artist. Art Dederick ...!hplabs!felix!art
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/23/89)
In article <4981@cbnews.ATT.COM> cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes: >Like Brad Templeton, I too disagree with Rahul's proposed "no >commercial postings" policy (i.e., no posting of shareware with >mandatory fees for use beyond an evaluation period). So I take it you support the idea of Rahul and other moderators and Usenet sites donating time and resources for the monetary benefit of others without a piece of the action? How about donating some of your time and money to the effort? Don't you realize that if we let this continue, Usenet is subsidizing a commercial undertaking even if it's just distribution and advertising, it's still a subsidy. If we don't nip this in the bud it may get so bad that the supporting sites may shut down, then where will Usenet be? Let them take their commercial endevours to were they don't get a free ride. Art Dederick ...!hplabs!felix!art =========================================== : Help ban commercial software from Usenet! ===========================================
davis@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) (03/23/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? NO. Only the legal benefits count. I think this unambiguously draws the line between two variants of "shareware", one that should be posted, the other not. If it is illegal to use it without paying, it is really not shareware, but a commercial product, and should be treated as such. Someone else objected to posting old versions of commercial programs. If the old version is really useful, as it would be if formerly sold commercially, and its publisher releases it to free use by all, it should be posted.
root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) (03/23/89)
The benefit to the hypothetical users of posted shareware is not
really determinable. The moderator cannot know how many legitimate
(or otherwise) users there may be for a piece of software.
Besides there are already policies against commercial exploitation
of Usenet. Distributing commercial software (which is what shareware
has come to mean -- just look at the ASP policies) is certainly in
violation of this.
Demo versions as advertising seem to be acceptable provided they
are really free and are useful as they stand. The fact that there
may be another product that is more capable and costs money should
be no bar to the posting of a useful piece of free software.
Of course, if it carries an excessive advertising burden it may mot
be useful ...
Cooperative support, i.e. voluntary payment to encourage continued
effort, seems to be acceptable.
Thos Sumner (thos@cca.ucsf.edu) BITNET: thos@ucsfcca
(The I.G.) (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos)
U.S. Mail: Thos Sumner, Computer Center, Rm U-76, UCSF
San Francisco, CA 94143-0704
OS|2 -- an Operating System for puppets.
#include <disclaimer.std>arwillms@crocus.waterloo.edu (Allan Willms) (03/23/89)
In article <54288@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> spolsky-joel@CS.YALE.EDU (Joel Spolsky) writes: >In other words, if someone gives >you unsolicited goods expecting to be paid for them , you must pay for >them or not accept them. > >The exception is goods received by US Mail which are covered by the >Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which states that if you receive >unsolicited goods by mail, you don't have to pay for them and can use >them freely. (U.S.C. Par. 3009 (approved Aug. 12, 1970)). > >Needless to say UseNet is not covered by the Postal reorganization >act, and therefore if someone posts Shareware stating clearly that if >you want to use it, you have to pay for it, s/he is legally making an But USENET exists with some rules. Is not one of those rules that one cannot use the NET for commercial purposes? I am not clear on this. Does it have something to do with the Internet, NSFnet, DARPA or something like that?
svirsky@ttidca.TTI.COM (Bill Svirsky) (03/24/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the >question is: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? Rahul, I don't think that this is a point with which you need be concerned. In a way, you'd be attempting to police the attitudes of your net readers. I think you should just make sure that you won't get into any trouble by posting shareware and not worry about the proper use of it once it gets into our hands. As far as shareware goes, I immediately throw away crippled versions, and pay no attention to trial periods of xx days. If I find the software useful, I pay for it. Sometime this takes me much longer than the trial period since I may only get time to evaluate it once or twice a week. I'd like to see trial periods based on xx days of use instead of xx days from 1st use. -- Bill Svirsky, Citicorp+TTI, 3100 Ocean Park Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405 Work phone: 213-450-9111 x2597 svirsky@ttidca.tti.com | ...!{csun,psivax,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!svirsky
mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) (03/24/89)
In article <990@necis.UUCP>, rbono@necis.UUCP (Rich Bono) writes: >force you to register... In my documentation I (usually) mention that it >is ok to give your friends a copy, but if you give out more than 5, you >must register with the author, this is to protect my commercial rights... >you know, those guys who fill disks with "public domain" software and sell >it for THEIR profit! Does that mean that if I have to register it if I post it to a BBS, and more than 5 people download it? Do I have to register it if I submit it to PC-SIG, or another similar (on the up-and-up) shareware group? If I take a copy to one of my user group's meeting's copy sessions, and more than 5 people want a copy, do I have to register it? Even if I don't want it? Sounds more like you're nipping increased circulation of your program in the bud. >So if someone could recomend a better "license agreement", that allows the >author to protect his commercial rights (I don't want someone ELSE >profiting from my stuff), then please let the authors know! Why don't you just put a clause in the licence agreement that states, "This is NOT public domain software. This is copyrighted software, and, as such, is the sole property of the author. No fee may be charged for this software, with the following exceptions: A disk-copying fee not to exceed 8 (eight) dollars US currency may be charged; and bulletin board systems that charge a general user fee may make this program available for download. It should be made clear to such persons that they have NOT registered the program; they have merely paid for the disk, wear and tear on the copier's drives, etc., and they must still register with the author after the trial period has expired." (You might want to run that by a lawyer before using it; I don't know any more about copyright law than the next guy.) -- Marc Unangst UUCP : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us UUCP bang : ...!uunet!sharkey!mudos!mju UUCP bang alt.: ...!{ames, rutgers}!mailrus!clip!mudos!mju Internet : mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (03/24/89)
In article <88464@felix.UUCP> art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) writes: | So I take it you support the idea of Rahul and other moderators and | Usenet sites donating time and resources for the monetary benefit of | others without a piece of the action? How about donating some of your | time and money to the effort? Don't you realize that if we let this | continue, Usenet is subsidizing a commercial undertaking even if it's I think you miss the whole point of why commercial sites carry unenet. We don't carry binaries to be nice, we do it because the benefit of having the software is greater than the cost. If a good piece of shareware comes along we can pay and use it. The cost then becomes the net cost plus the shareware fee. In many cases this is still very cost effective. Big firms spend a lot of money on evaluation copies of commercial software which never gets used. Most sites don't care if someone benefits, as long as the site paying the phone bill does. We don't carry things because they're free, or refuse them because they're not. Now, on my BBS, I put up what seems useful to my users. Again I don't care if someone makes money, it's a public service and therefore the most useful things (my decision) get carried. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
rbono@necis.UUCP (Rich Bono) (03/24/89)
In article <167.242944EA@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>, mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes: > > Does that mean that if I have to register it if I post it to a BBS, and more > than 5 people download it? Do I have to register it if I submit it to > PC-SIG, or another similar (on the up-and-up) shareware group? If I take a > copy to one of my user group's meeting's copy sessions, and more than 5 > people want a copy, do I have to register it? Even if I don't want it? > Sounds more like you're nipping increased circulation of your program in the > bud. NO, NO... I was trying to keep others from "selling" my stuff... that is all... if you deliver ONE copy to PC-SIG... then you only gave out one copy... If you gave out many copies to members of a users group, then you should register. But if you places ONE copy into the users group library, and it is a bona-fide users group, then I see no problem with that. I understand that I may have limited circulation.. But, that is what happens when I try to think up some "clear" words to describe stuff like this in the middle of the night when I am working on my code... > > Why don't you just put a clause in the licence agreement that states, "This > is NOT public domain software.This is copyrighted software, and, as such, is > the sole property of the author. No fee may be charged for this software, > with the following exceptions: A disk-copying fee not to exceed 8 > (eight) dollars US currency may be charged; and bulletin board systems that > charge a general user fee may make this program available for download. It > should be made clear to such persons that they have NOT registered the > program; they have merely paid for the disk, wear and tear on the copier's > drives, etc., and they must still register with the author after the trial > period has expired." > > (You might want to run that by a lawyer before using it; I don't know any > more about copyright law than the next guy.) I am not a lawyer either, and since I am not "selling" software, I have no income to support paying for a lawyer... But I will work on your ideas, I thought that my statement implies what you have stated in less words.. all this trouble is because people try to interpret what an author means intead of just reading the words and literaly (sp?) applying them!!!! As a Federaly Licensed Amateur Radio operator, we have a whole book full of rules to "live" by... and many times a big controversy stirs up because "the people" try to interpret the rules every which way, what if this, and what if that... They rarely just read the words and apply them. Too many philosophers (sp?) out there!!! The end result of this (to me) is that I am going to *try* to protect my creations from others who want to profit by my hard work... If the net, decides not to distribute bits when the author is trying to protect himself, and also could use some optional income to help defray costs.. then so be it. Society has rules to protect organization.. some good things do get lost between the cracks of the rules... This is *life*!! I do apply the rules.... Rich -- /**************************************************************************\ * Rich Bono (NM1D) If I could only 'C' forever!! rbono@necis.nec.com * * (508) 635-6303 NEC Information Systems NM1D @ WB1DSW-1 * \**************************************************************************/
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/27/89)
>In article <13415@steinmetz.ge.com> Wm. E. Davidsen Jr writes: >We don't carry binaries to be nice, we do it because the benefit of Well here comp.binaries.ibm.* is only being carried because management IS being nice. This has been the same at other places I have worked. I say pu tit to a test, go to your upper management and ak this question: Is is ok to subsidize non-<insert company name here> business by allowing non-<same thing> advertizing and distribution be carried by those netnews news groups we are paying for via phone charges etc? If they say it's ok, I lose the debate and how can I get hired, sounds like an easy place to work. I'll bet they at least would want a very clear picture of what they are paying for and what benefit the subsidized persons are getting. I'll get the next statement they say is, "How about we do some free advertizing on this thing". >having the software is greater than the cost. If a good piece of >shareware comes along we can pay and use it. The cost then becomes the >net cost plus the shareware fee. In many cases this is still very cost >effective. Big firms spend a lot of money on evaluation copies of >commercial software which never gets used. Unless you are a PC house and use nothing but PC's, c.b.i.p is not much useful to you. Carrying it might be ok because the people working at the site may have PC's at home, but there is no direct benefit to the company that is footing the bill. Now I do have a PC and I would hate to lose c.b.i.p because some unscrupulous people let this shareware concept take advantage of the net and my management get wind of it. Cutting off netnews has already been threaten once and I know this would pretty much kill it for us. If they want money for it, it's commercial. Commercial postings are not allowed regardless of who benefits. D. Art Dederick (714) 966-3618 {ccicpg,decuac,hplabs,oliveb,ucivax,zardoz}!felix!art
manes@marob.MASA.COM (Steve Manes) (03/28/89)
From article <89058@felix.UUCP>, by art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick): > I say pu tit to a test, go to your upper management and ak this > question: > > Is is ok to subsidize non-<insert company name here> business > by allowing non-<same thing> advertizing and distribution be > carried by those netnews news groups we are paying for via > phone charges etc? Why stop there? Why not pay a visit to the board of directors of XYZ Corp, which feeds a couple of dozen Usenet mouths from its InfoCenter, and ask them how they feel about the 4-figure phone bills and UUNET charges in the development budget so a bunch of outside freeloaders can send each other mail on their tab? Take a poll of how many system administrators bury Usenet expenses in their department budgets precisely because management wouldn't approve of it (not that I expect many to admit to it). Or is such third-party subsidization only abusive if you have no use for it? -- Steve Manes Roxy Recorders, Inc. Magpie-HQ BBS UUCP : {rutgers|cmcl2}!hombre!magpie!manes (212)420-0527 Smail: manes@MASA.COM
neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) (03/28/89)
In article <89058@felix.UUCP> art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) writes: >>In article <13415@steinmetz.ge.com> Wm. E. Davidsen Jr writes: >>We don't carry binaries to be nice, we do it because the benefit of > >Well here comp.binaries.ibm.* is only being carried because management >IS being nice. This has been the same at other places I have worked. > >Unless you are a PC house and use nothing but PC's, c.b.i.p is not much >useful to you. (actually, there is likely to be some value if you use even SOME pc's, but how much value depends on the situation of your organization) >unscrupulous people let this shareware concept take advantage of the >net and my management get wind of it. Cutting off netnews has already >been threaten once and I know this would pretty much kill it for us. I certainly do not want to give the impression that I don't approve of people (or even pseudo-people like companies) being nice. I most definitely do. I hope, though that if a netnews crunch comes to your company, that management does realize that they are under no obligation to carry it on an all or nothing basis. You can easily simply refuse c.b.i.p while continuing to carry other netnews. I hope (for many people's sake) that we do not have to worry about that. I have not spoken to Rahul Dhesi about this subject, but it appears from his postings that he may also be worried about what will happen to the distribution of c.b.i.p if it becomes blatantly commercial. While there may (or may not) be sufficient benefit to the net.world.as.a.whole from carrying shareware, we have to remain aware that the net is not a uniform entity. Some sites (like Bill's) may regard shareware distribution on the net to be a net service (pun intended) to them and be more than happy to get it. Other sites (possibly, though not obviously, including Art's) may be run by people who are sufficiently distraught by the thought that someone (other than them) may gain some advantage from the net that they are unwilling to tolerate whatever they or their employees may gain from participation. Most probably fall somewhere in between. Then there are the governmental sites (including universities). Some or all of these sites may have little or no authority to decide how much commercial software is transmitted to or through them. For some of these sites ANY commercial transmissions may be enough to jeopardize their participation. Someone (sorry, I forgot your name) suggested that "shareware" might be added to the distribution line to determine where it might go without requiring major changes to the net software. Whatever is done, my opinion is that we must first and foremost protect the structure of the net. If we allow impermissible types of postings, we may lose the net entirely, which would be far worse than losing convenient access to shareware. The question to the posters who have advocated that postings of binaries be determined solely on utility with no concern for the question of how commercial is shareware, is what is the extent of danger to the net from posting dubious binaries? The utility of such software must be reduced by the very real risk that at least this newsgroup and possibly all netnews would be curtailed at some sites. I do not know the answer to this question either, but I am worried. -- Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.bsu.edu neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!neubauer
cb@cci632.UUCP (Curtis Braun) (03/29/89)
In article <6260@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >But most people haven't addressed an issue I raised. Very briefly, the >question is: > > Should illegal use of shareware be considered a benefit? > > ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu This discussion seems to be touching all realms for the public (refer to distrubution) access to software. What should/can be distributed and for whom? As Rahul questions, he is referencing the point of benefit... I have bought a lot of software. I have also been burned quite a few times (disfunctional - poor - brain damaged software). The NET is a great place for me to try before I buy. Where else can I go?? If I buy a book, then I can go to the book store and peruse it (or check it out at the library) If I go to the retailer to check out the software, There are always problems with equipment compability, software availability, etc. (Let's not even speak of software rental houses). The benefit of the NET is to be able to attain software to try it out (1) and get other user's opinions on that sofware that is/was posted (2), and have an archive for those future needs [I didn't need pccurses last year, but now I do!](3). Thanks Rahul for the first pass at the software, he is the first step in weeding out junk [he saves us time](4). IF all good software had a (MIF style) self destuct timer in it, and was able to be distrubuted on the net ($$ status irrelevent), IT would still be a benefit to the NET readers, because YOU the net reader could evaluate it. I have a personal archive of software, I keep it, but I don't use it, but it's there for the asking. No one said that this (the NET ) is a forum for FREE software. It's a forum for the FREE exchange of ideas and information!! If software is made available to US (net readers) then it is still the property of the author(s). If It is given away (read free) by the author, then be it. If the author says try me first, then the author excepts the risk that user may not like it or use it without conscience (sp). As long as Rahul can determine it's legitemacy, (refer to as author has given permission to distribute) then it is of benefit to the readers of the NET (and maybe others, as I pass on info to people who do not have net access). Rahul can't stop people from borrowing software from their place of work, their friends. Why should he have to worry about what people borrow from the authors that have allowed distribution through him? Curtis ( !rochester!kodak!n2hkd!curtis or cb@cci632.uucp)
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (03/29/89)
In article <6236@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: Another program, submitted at the same time, is terrific too. It's a demo, but the only thing that makes it a demo is that 15 days from the date of first use it will stop working (until you make a fresh copy). The license says that when you call their toll-free number and tell them your credit card number, or just say that you will be soon be mailing them a check, you will get a secret code that will unlock the program so it will always work. The license does *not* say that payment is required; it just says "this is a demo version that can be converted to the non-demo version..." and explains how. Should both, or none, or one (which?) be posted? -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu I would say no: Let's suppose Yet Another Program releases swarms of evil disk munging viruses after its trial period is over and you are still using it. Should this be posted? "WE decided?!? MY best interests?" -- Suicidal Tendencies _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG @ 145.110-, 444.2+, 448.625- -----
art@felix.UUCP (Art Dederick) (03/31/89)
In article <6359@bsu-cs.UUCP> neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) writes: >Whatever is done, my opinion is that we must first and foremost protect the >structure of the net. If we allow impermissible types of postings, we may >lose the net entirely, which would be far worse than losing convenient >access to shareware. >The utility of such software must >be reduced by the very real risk that at least this newsgroup and possibly >all netnews would be curtailed at some sites. I agree with this as being the number ONE priority. My only goal in getting into this discussion in the first place has been to protect a resource I find very useful. As long as I don't have to wade through megabytes of commercial software and posting of this commercial software does not threaten my access to the net, I don't really care. If a newsgroup could be provided, say comp.binaries.share.{ibm,atari,...}, and c.b.i.p be restricted to PD software (or "beg" software), then my site, and others like mine, can receive what is non-commercial without worry. Art Dederick (714)966-3618 ..!{decuac,oliveb,ucivax}!felix!art