🚀 go-pugleaf

Am I alone in thinking that the distribution over USENET of this
self-proclaimed commercial package is a bit of a cheek? 

I'm not for a moment going to dispute the usefulness of the package or
the work that Brad and Co have put into it.

But let's not forget - USENET costs money. For many people, that money
is part of someone else's budget and they don't have to worry about it.
For others, like myself, that money comes out of their own pockets in
phone bills. 

The shar files for newsclip total around 750K - a non-trivial amount,
representing around 1 hour of phone time at 1200 baud with a 
commpressed news feed (are *you* going to buy me a faster modem?).
It's bad enough when firms send you unsolicited material through
the post - at least *they* pay for the delivery of it.

Would anyone like to guess the *global* cost of this distribution?

British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post.
So, Looking Glass Software. The unsolicited copy of Newsclip that you
sent to me now awaits collection at your expense at some mutually agreed
time. If you do not collect the goods within 6 months then title and
ownership of them will revert to me. A storage charge may be payable.

Peter Kendell

P.S.	Why not distribute the software under the GNU licence and make your
	money by selling really well produced printed manuals for it?

P.P.S.	Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their*
	software?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|		  Peter Kendell <pete@tcom.stc.co.uk>	        	   |
|				...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete		   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------