🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1361@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes:
>[If you're not interested in ethics or moral positions at all, skip this.]
>
>woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>> 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.

>Frankly, these arguments sound very much like "it's OK to use shareware for
>free because I can get away with it", and "I'll only pay if I can't get away
>with using it for free". I hope I misunderstand your posting, but that's
>how it sounds to me. Please also note that most shareware comes with a
>contract that obligates you to pay if you use the software after a certain
>trial period. These contracts may be unenforceable, but then the enforce-
>ability of a contract nowadays is mainly related to the salary of the lawyers
>involved, not to any state of moral appropriateness. Certainly the alleged
>unenforceability of a contract does not free you from your ethical (moral)
>duties.

Actually, it does.  I believe the proper legal term is 'contract of
adhesion'; these are considered unenforcable.  (pardon me if I got this
wrong; I'm no lawyer, but I do pay them occasionally :-)  

There is also the not-so-trite matter of distribution cost.  If a Shareware
distributor posts to Usenet, he/she has used everyone's resources to effect
distribution.  It is quite within reason that the owner of a system could
consider it a fair deal -- "you used my system to distribute the software
(and I paid for the transport and storage), and I'll use your software". 

A good analogy is a package which shows up at your door through the post
office with an invoice enclosed (and $1.50 in postage due!).  If you didn't 
order it (and I certainly didn't order any of the shareware on the net!) 
then you are free to keep the product, and have >no obligation to pay the 
bill<.  This is true whether the product which is in the box is a fifteen 
cent candy bar, a $1,000 VCR, or $15,000 in Kruggerands.

Before everyone goes off and hits the "F" (for flame) key, let me state my
position.  I've published Shareware before.  Through Usenet even.  I don't
recall ever receiving a contribution for any of the work posted to Usenet,
although I have seen it used at many sites.  I >have< received money for
followup purchases of "improved" products -- which I did not put out as
Shareware.  My experience goes back before I was on the net; to 1981 in
fact.  Do I have a right to complain?

Perhaps.  I can make noise that I was robbed, or whatever.  It doesn't
change anything.  The point is that few if any people who get software off 
the net (or CI$, or wherever) fork up for the shareware contributions.  Those
who post Shareware (Brad and myself included; read his note at the front of 
Part01!) are quite aware of this, and post the shareware anyway.

Asking for a donation if you find software useful seems ok to me.  Sending
diskettes off with shareware on them (at the request of the prospective
customer) and requiring those users to either cease using the code or pay
for it at some point is ok too.  Saying "pay me $50 if you use this, or 
you're pond-sucking scum", while pushing the code down the recipient's 
throat at their expense somehow seems different.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"