🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13946@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
>greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>
>|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."
>
>Then that would be copyright infringement, which is a pretty clear
>cut issue. I do not advocate theft of anything, which make most
>of the rest of your posting completely irrelevant.

The interesting question is whether or not you'd feel entitled to use
the copy of the code residing on your machine.  For example: I've never
posted any of my shareware stuff to a usenet newsgroup.  Let's assume
someone else does.  And it sits on your machine.  And I say, in a posting,
that the software should not have been distributed and for everybody to
please not use it unless they want to buy a legitimate copy directly from me
or from my distributors.

So, there is software sitting on your harddisk with my copyright and license
information on it.  It got there without you asking for it, and without me
posting it.  I give you certain restrictions on its usage.  However, the
particular package sitting on your disk is not shareware.  Do you use
something to which you are clearly not entitled?

Now, I tell you it's shareware.  Does your opinion of the program change?
Of the author?  Of the restriction against its usage?

Wait, I'll back up.  Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow,
my commercially distributed code got out on the net.  Without my permission.
I beg your forgiveness for utiltizing some of the valuable resources on your
computer -- even though I never posted the stuff myself.  In payment for
this unwarrented intrusion of my software, which I did not release on the net,
and which somebody else illegally placed on the net, i would like to offer
you usage of that software for a limited time.  At the end of that limited
time, I figure that my utilization of your resources and your utilization
of my program even each other out, and I'll ask you to stop using it. At
that time, you may purchase a brand new, spanking fresh copy of the code,
including documentation, support, a new disk, the works...but please 
remember that your usage of that illegally distributed code is only with my
permission in the first place...and I herewith remove that permission after
'n' days..."

Thta's not, strictly speaking, shareware.  Tell me, will you use the illegally
distributed code at all?  Will you use it against the wishes of the author?
Will you appreciate the offer the author is giving you?


>
>What the author probably does not have the right to do, and I
>personally believe that he does not, is bind the user to a "license"
>that he never signs or indeed might never see.
>

Bind him legally, probably not.  Ethically, well, that depends on how ethical
the user is.  As to seeing a license agreement....you are suggesting bigger
screens, displays and copyright/license notices?

>
>Lotus' license agreements have nothing to do with the various lawsuits
>they've filed. All of them have been for copyright infringement. Although
>without a contract, Lotus can't dictate what is done with a legally owned
>copy of their software, copyright law says they do have the right to
>limit duplication of those copies.
>

But they could never enforce their rights on alt.sources.  Only the ethics
of the end-user, the guy or gal receiving that code, can enforce these
rights.  Just as only you can prevent forest fires, only you can prevent
ethics violations.

>
>|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.
>
>The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to
>bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that
>you do, then we have a difference of opinion.
>

Again, are you going to use that copy of software posted above?  I've
introduced a third party to this.  That's because that's how shareware
spreads.  I release my products only onto four systems:  my own BBS, CIS,
BIX, and my computer clubs bulletin board system.  All other copies were
copied by someone else.  Potentially, you're saying that you'd feel no 
obligation to pay for the usage of my code is someone else posts it onto
usenet.  Potentialy, though, if someone did not post it there, you might
have bought a copy of it commercially, or through a shareware disk
distributor.  Interesting thought: you can simply wait for someone to post
code to the net, collect it, use it, not pay for it, and claim they owe
you for the use of your machine.  Neat trick.  Sorta silly, but a neat trick.

If you were to buy shareware from a shareware vendor (they charge you a coupla
bucks for a disk full of shareware you;re supposed to register if you like
it), well, do you register?  Or do you feel that their usage of the mail
system, partially subsidized by your tax dollar, entitles you to not 
register the code and pay the requested fee?

Heck, those commercial houses, like Lotus, are using some tax credits,
using some of the resources your tax dollar buys.  Does this entitle you
to use any commercial program you pirate, based on the idea of having somehow
already paid for it in some obscure and self justifying way?

>I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then
>demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the
>sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights
>of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's
>a con, a scam, and I don't like it.

So?  Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known.  But don;t use shareware
unless you pay for it.  You;re entitled to your view, me to mine.  You're
entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still
entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there.  Those
who use the code without paying for it are unethical.


>
>If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support
>and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which
>they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced
>functionality and human help by paying for it.
>

Obviously, you have no idea how shareware works, for the "extras" you
descibe is how we convince people to register.  We're doing it already,
and have been for years.  I, personally, am just tired of the justification
people try to use when they unethically use someone else's work without
paying for it.

-- 
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"
-- 
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"