🚀 go-pugleaf

If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership
of a copy, then what are the consequences of this?

Which lawyer said this, anyway?  The consequence would be that shareware
in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire?

Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal.
Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal
more than the author.   After all, one of the whole ideas behind
shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive
packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets
passed on to the customer.   With no try-before-you-buy.

I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software
than posting to a BBS or Compuserve.

Why?  For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used.  It wasn't
in a usable form, much like most USENET postings.   You have to go to
some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it
again), compiling it and then using it.

All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the
software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is
a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those
other acts don't.   Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as
such, and contains english information that you can read without
copying, unpacking etc.   Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking
is no different than anybody who downloads.  Can you come up with an
argument to the contrary?
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473