🚀 go-pugleaf

 richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes:
>
>By demanding payment for software that you have distributed freely
>you are acting unethically.

First, I (and other shareware authors) demand payment for the continued right
to use our software.  We use existing lines of distribution, and rarely
do the actual distribution ourselves.  We ask only that you pay for software
if you continue using it.  Unlike commercial software that you pay for and
*then* use.  So, what is unethical here?

>
>Therefore I would use your software (if it was any good) and never
>ever pay you a penny -- in protest of your unethical, and probably
>illegal approach to marketing.

My own software ended up winning PCMag's Editor's Choice against a bunch
of competitor's.  The two ends of the spectrum won: mine, at $10, and the
other end, at $189.  I figure that shows that shareware is "just as good"
as commercialware.  

As to whether my approach to distributing software is illegal: please, 
be serious? 

>
>I urge others to do the same.
>

That's a pity, for you would have others act in an unethical manner and against
the wishes of the intellectual property owner.  An attitude such as yours in
one to be ashamed of, not one to be proud of; it's an attitude we try to teach
out children to avoid:  "No, Sammy, just ignore that rude man and walk around
him..."

>If you were to request payment rather than demand it I would then
>feel obliged to pay you (if your software was any good, and I needed
>it.)

I do request payment.  Demands can be made when you're able to enforce them.
I know damned well that a demand is -- currently -- unenforceable.  But
I am entitled to restrict the usage license on my software contingent upon
anything I like.  That's the law.  And, I've restricted mine so that you're
able to use it freely for a while, but then must pay me for the continued
right to continue using the software.

I guess that's a demand upon your ethics, for if you don't pay, you're not 
using the software with the permission of the owner, or in the way that
the author has given you permission to.

>
>Since you're legal arguments are all falling apart you're starting to
>attack us on bogus "ethical" grounds -- personally I find this
>reprehensible.

I've never stood on the legal ground, Richard.  I've always felt that the
proper usage of software was ethical usage of it.  Improper usage of it,
such as using against the permissions of the owner of the right to use that
software, well that *is* unethical.  You might call it "bogus" because that
might make you more comfortable.  But it isn't.  As for reprehensible, well,
inviting others to act in an unethical manner (visions of a crack dealer,
standing outside a schoolyard, saying "Hey, just try it once...") might
be considered a bit worse than simply trying to get others to respect the
rights of intellectual property owners.


-- 
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"