🚀 go-pugleaf

 jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>Copying shareware is =encouraged=.  So I may very legally obtain and
>distribute copies of shareware.  With the issue of the legality of any
>copies of shareware disposed of, the only remaining legal issue is
>whether or not the license can restrict me from using it.  Since I did
>not agree to the terms of the license, I am free to use my copy in any
>fashion I choose.

If you do not see the inherent contradiction between the above and your
reluctance to use priacted software, I'm at a loss.  I permit legal
*copying* of my software.  I permit you to use my software for a while.
But, after that while is up, I expect you to pay for its usage or to stop
using it.

Since you claim you did not agree to the terms of any license, I suppose
that if the message:  "This code not registered after 90 days, erasing
your disk..."  you'd be happy to take the other side of the equation: you
can;t sue the SOB destroying your data because *you* never signed anything?


>
>Ross, you're being an idiot.  Lotus 1-2-3 is protected by a copyright,
>shareware isn't - the copyright on most shareware is written to encourage
>copying.  That's the whole idea - make all the copies you want and them
>give them to your friends, along with a request for money.  There is no
>question as to my legally being able to obtain a copy.

Wrong. First, I work hard at not being an idiot, I only play one on TV.
Second, I do not give up my copyright by giving you permission to make
copies as per my terms.  Third, the "request" for funds is part of the 
copying, and your right to se that code is contingent upon you paying
for that continued right.  There is a world of difference between being 
able to legally obtain a copy and being able to ethically use that copy.
You may use that copy, ethically, for the evaluation period without paying
for it.  Usage without payment after that period is unethical.  

Simply don't use the code if you don;t want to pay for it.  It really
is that simple.


>
>>Now, are you complaining about shareware over UseNet, or about shareware as
>>a whole?  Or, are you simply complaining?
>
>Shareware on USENET.  This is USENET, right?

Right you are.  I've been Usenetting for a while, and that'swhy I've never
posted my code here.  I'm a tad uncomfortable with using the net that way.
For myself.  However, if somebody else posts my code to the net, I'd 
still feel that users of my code must pay 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"