🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13912@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>I say the analogy is more like a a fishing rod being delivered to your
>house. By US law, you're free to go fishing with it. I feel exactly the same
>way about software delivered without a previous contract.
>

Although this is not the case, Sean, what would happen if my shareware
package had a specific not in it:  "Not to be distributed onto UseNet or
InterNet by any means whatsoever."

And, it appeared there.  And, hence appeared on your local system. If I,
the author of the package, was not the poster of the package, would you
still feel that you have the moral right to use the software?  Even though
the author specifically prohibits it and specifically did not use the net
by his own desire?

Doesn't the author of the program have *any* rights at all insofar as you
are concerned with regard to their program being posted?

If the answer to that question is "No.", then I expect you'd have no
problem with a copy of Lotus, for example, being distributed on the
net.  Nor would you have a problem with someone busting into your 
account on your machine, taking whatever proprietary stuff you have
on that machine (even stuff that might belong to your employer and
which you've signed non-discolsures on!) and distributing that on the net.

So, then, if there is some moral reserve you'd have about using a pirate
copy of Lotus (and what makes it "pirated"? The fact that you're using it
against their license agreement, I guess), or about others using something
that you consider proprietary to yourself, then what is the problem with
adhereing to the wishes of another author, a commercial author (too), who
has happened to distribute software in a different way than through Egghead
software?

I contend that, if you think that Lotus has the right to prohibit the usage
of their software from being distributed *and*used* on the net (again, let's
forget the legal implications) and would uphold a decision they might have
to do whatever they could to prevent usage of the product against their
license agreement, then shareware license agreements should be looked at
in the same light.

As for legalities:  in NYC it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk.  Some
cretins still do it.  What keeps the majority of people from spitting on
the sidewalk?  Two things:  their own personal set of values as to what
constitues proper behavior and what does not, and (potentially) the adverse
views of others at their unruly and unsocial behavior.  The fear of being
arrested or getting a ticket does not enter into it.

I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware,
that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be
viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar,
crass, anti-social, and disgusting.




-- 
Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today!   greenber@utoday.UUCP
             594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber  MCI: greenber   CIS: 72461,3212
  To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"