sonny@charybdis.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis) (08/03/90)
There are marvelous software packages for IBM compatibles that are truly Public Domain. For one reason or another, the author has relinquished ALL rights and you can legally do with it what you please-- including sell it (if you can find a buyer). It is proper to call ONLY such software Public Domain (is it not?). But another considerable class of software is copyrighted software that the author has made FREE for personal, non-commercial use. However, you usually cannot sell such software for profit without additional licensing and fees. There is a big difference between PD on the one hand, and Copyrighted but Free for personal use on the other. It is NOT right to call such software Public Domain. I've often felt the need for a name to describe such software. Perhaps there IS such a name and I simply do not know it. At one time I thought "Freeware" was the right term, but then I saw that term used to describe what is more widely known as Shareware. What do we call software that is Copyrighted but Free for personal use? "Public Domain" won't do--it is misleading, just as is the widespread tendency to describe Shareware as being Public Domain. ______________________________________________________________________________ Bob Davis \\ INTERNET : sonny@trantor.harris-atd.com | _ _ | Harris Corporation, ESS \\ UUCP : ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!sonny |_| |_| | | Advanced Technology Dept.\\ AETHER : K4VNO |==============|_/\/\/\|_| PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 \\ VOICE : (407) 727-5886 | I SPEAK ONLY | |_| |_| | Melbourne, FL 32902 \\ FAX : (407) 729-2537 | FOR MYSELF. |_________|
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/04/90)
sonny@charybdis.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis) writes: > Perhaps there IS such a name and I simply do not know it. At one time > I thought "Freeware" was the right term, but then I saw that term used to > describe what is more widely known as Shareware. What you saw was a mis-application of the term. Freeware is, I believe, the correct term for copyrighted free software. -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual now available at: | main(){ | reality need cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? (cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me
ergo@.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) (08/05/90)
In <XNBcN2w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >sonny@charybdis.harris-atd.com (Bob Davis) writes: >> Perhaps there IS such a name and I simply do not know it. At one time >> I thought "Freeware" was the right term, but then I saw that term used to >> describe what is more widely known as Shareware. >What you saw was a mis-application of the term. Freeware is, I believe, >the correct term for copyrighted free software. *The* correct term? Who decided this? I really want to know, it'd make manual writing so much easier if I could just go ask some what *the* correct meaning of words like "microcode" and "baud". Anyway, I'm afraid Bob is correct. I distinctly remember reading an article on Quicksoft (in Microtimes, I think) that said that they'd registered the word "freeware" as a trademark. This was back when the shareware business was just getting going, and there wasn't any general term for it. Probably if they'd registered another name "freeware" would be the generic term now instead of "shareware". It's a pity, since once you've called the "no charge for just trying it" software "shareware", "freeware" is the logical name for "no charge at all but it's still copyrighted" software. But human language is often illogical -- and it's just as well that we all don't talk in Prolog! Still, I've noticed that Quicksoft hasn't used that word much lately. (Not at all in my copy of PCBrowse [yes, I'm gonna send in my $10 RSN].) Perhaps they can be persuaded to let "freeware" lapse, if they haven't already. In the mean time, you probably shouldn't correct people when they misuse "public domain". People think it's really obnoxious. At least they seem to when *I* do it! -- ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know!" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/05/90)
In article <11424@.UUCP> ergo@.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) writes:
In the mean time, you probably shouldn't correct people when they
misuse "public domain". People think it's really obnoxious. At
least they seem to when *I* do it!
I always correct people when they refer to my free software as "public domain".
I tell them that it's copyrighted but copyable by all. The most inclusive
term is "freely copyable". This refers to truly public domain, free software,
and shareware.
Be sure to understand that "free software" refers to the status of the
software, not the price you pay to get it. There is no such thing as
zero-cost software. If you downloaded it from a BBS, you paid for the phone
call. If you got it from a disk copying firm, you paid them for it. Media
costs are always non-zero (although the other guy may be paying the cost).
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
In Communism's central planning, citizens are told "you will make widgets".
In Capitalism's advertising, citizens are told "you will buy widgets".cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gordon Hlavenka) (08/07/90)
>*The* correct term? Who decided this? I really want to know, it'd >make manual writing so much easier if I could just go ask some what >*the* correct meaning of words like "microcode" and "baud". Pardon the drift... I think any lawyer at Intel could tell you what *the* definition of microcode is. (Then again, any lawyer at AMD might disagree.) Baud is frequently misused as a synonym for bps (perhaps misused more often than otherwise!), but there is only the one *correct* meaning. ---------------------------------------------------------- Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us Disclaimer: He's lying