🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1134@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
> [....]  The reason I come out with shareware is because of the
> honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to
> continue to develop software.
>
> Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it.  My free stuff you
> can use without paying for.  But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for
> the shareware. Don't like it, then don't it.  That's pretty simple.
> [....]

There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware.
One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and
support.  Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-)
is only part of service and support.  The other reason is if I am
making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll
gladly share that profit.

Ethics are very slippery things.  I consider myself to have a good,
concise, and coherent set of morals and ethics.  However, I do not
feel obliged in any way to pay for shareware unless I am either making
a good profit directly from its use, or unless I require good
support.  I don't feel very obligated to pay for anything someone
builds and offers to the world on terms they have little or no hope of
enforcing.  If you truely wish to receive payment for your efforts,
then make it a condition of the offer.  Don't publish your work in a
free and widely distributed manner, then hope people will re-imburse
you.  Remember, even the "shrink-wrap" license is considered by many
to be un-enforcable, and shareware can have similar characteristics.

I subscribe to a philosophy which might be compared somewhat to that
of Richard Stallman:  I don't believe I should have to pay for
intellectual property, unless the "owner" is forces me to go through
the motions of purchasing a license or commercial copy.  If you give
your intellectual property to me, and then ask me to pay for it if I
use it, you'll probably be left alone in the dust.  I believe
knowledge, both in the direct form, and in some cases the
implementation (eg. algorithms and programmes) should be freely, and
easily, available.  It's too bad electronic representation of
information has changed one of the fundamental concepts used over the
centuries in managing knowledge and information.  In the end I believe
it is for the better.  If I were a communist, or even more socialist
than I already am, I might support a tax on electronic data media,
similar to what musicians are advocating for cassette tapes (not that
I think the musicians are communists!).  However, I believe there are
far better ways to manage the problem.

Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the use of "free" software
distributed over mediums such as USENET.  I will also contribute when
and where I can.  I extend my gratitude and heartfelt thanks to those
who do the same.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA