🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:
> And in both cases, it's pretty explicit that the author gave you this copy...
> for evaluation.
> [....]
> To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has
> ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid
> restriction a copyright holder may place on copying.  We may never know.

Whoa!  This is where it gets sticky.  WARNING, I am not a lawyer, and
I haven't actually read the copyright law since the early 70's.
However, I don't believe it is as fuzzy as you say.  I recently read a
comment by a lawyer which stated that it was unwise for a software
author to try to attach any special considerations to the copyright
notice, except the standard "All rights reserved..." notice.

Copyright law protects an author from those who would make
un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who
would claim the work to be their own.

Second, and most important in this argument, is the fact that for an
author to protect his copyright, he must make specific and obvious
effort to prevent un-authorized copying of the work.

Everyone on the shareware side of the argument seems to be missing
the meaning of these little points.

Shareware seems to be protected only by copyright.  Contracts and
licenses do not seem feasible.  I.e. the only protection under the law
for shareware authors is copyright.

If this is the case, shareware authors appear to be doing the exact
opposite of what the law requires them to do to protect their
copyright.  They are making copies of their product freely available,
and encouraging further copying!  The only thing left for copyright
law to protect is the ownership of the work and prevent another from
claiming the work to be his own.

> [....]  I still think it is improper to
> ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the
> code that has the value, not the bits on the disk.  This "unsolicited
> book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because
> disks cost that.

Fine, you have your "morals" and I have mine.  Where software is
involved, mine definitely lean towards those of the FSF.  I do write
software for profit, but under contract agreements and such.  I have
not, and probably will not ever write a piece of software which I
intend to become a product for profit in and of itself.  On the other
hand, I would not turn down financial benefit offered for this
software in the case where such benefit did not restrict the further
distribution of said software.  The party which offered the benefit
would certainly get superior service and support.

There is one more interesting little point I should make:  I would not
dissuade others from supplying service and support for my software in
trade for financial benefit (as per the FSF philosophy).  It is my
guess that shareware authors are trying to do just that.  They believe
software should be easily available (but not completely free), and
that they should be given the exclusive right to service and support
their own creations.  Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA