🚀 go-pugleaf

 jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>The law, more likely than not, is that even the license is unenforcable,
>and that shareware is pretty much available for free public use, without
>restriction of any kind, if it is distributed in a medium such as USENET.

Okey doke, then you have no problem using copies of Lotus 123 that find their
way onto your computer, eh?  

>
>A license is a contract.  Once you have given me the software by sending
>it out on a public network, you are unable to force me to agree to the
>terms of the contract.  Others have suggested analogies to the postal
>system.  I didn't ask for it, and now I am free to do with it as I please.

Alright then, ask a friend of your to post Lotus to the net.  Now, you
take it and start freely distributing it around.  Now, tell your management
what you are doing.  I'm sure they'll see it the same way as you do.

You're right in that *I'm* unable to enforce my license agreement if you
choose to violate it.  That's why I rely on the ethics of people.


>
>And what is unethical, and probably illegal as well considering the
>non-commercial nature of the Internet, is that people are being forced
>to provide the distribution for your software.

As of date, you'll not find that my own software has been posted to the 
Internet or to Usenet.  Simply because of that reason, actually.  Now,
if there were a comp.binaries.shareware newsgroup, then it could be
restricted (if people felt like it).  InterNet is being used for a bunch


>.  And you are, if you are a successful
>shareware author, sitting back and collecting money that was earned for
>you by others who have provided this "distribution mechanism".

Nope, not sitting back.  Wondering if i should provide a timely update, 
providing services to registered customers and allowing people to try 
my software first, before they pay that hefty $10 registration fee.  Right
now, about 1% of the people using my code are ethical enough to register it.
The other 99% are still benefiting from its usage.

>
>USENET is a =free= co-operative network.  People who take advantage of

Sigh. UseNet is not now, nor has it ever been free.  There have always
been charges for telecommunications, for disk space, for that modem,
for the extra time the SA's spend maintaining netnews, etc.  It has,
usually (and if you ignore *.flame) been co-operative.  It has occasionally
been commercial.

Now, are you complaining about shareware over UseNet, or about shareware as
a whole?  Or, are you simply complaining?


-- 
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"