🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't have any problem with shareware. Just because it comes to your 
disk without your express permission doesn't mean that you don't have 
an obligation to abide by the terms of the shareware "license"---pay
for it if you use it and like it.

As to the idea of shareware occupying piles of disk space and phone 
time... I just don't see that that happens. The only time we've 
had a problem with disk space (and we have a fairly small system), 
the source of the problem was not shareware over the net. It was 
a half-dozen to a dozen postings of complete scripts of The Rocky Horror 
Picture Show, which some well-meaning but misguided souls contributed
to alt.cult-movies.

Shareware has been on the net for a long time, as far as I know. As 
to the legalities of putting it on the net, and how that affects 
shareware "licensing" agreements....

When the law works *right*, it is a recognition on paper of principles 
which the vast majority of a community live by, in order to keep that 
small minority which does not live by those principles from fouling things up.

Thus in the "real world" (i.e., non computer), we have laws against 
stealing. The vast majority of people do not steal, and agree that 
stealing is wrong. We have laws to give that vast majority a tool to 
protect themselves against the minority.

Okay, now take "shareware." This is a concept which evolved in the computer
community meaning, "Here, take this program, use it for a while, then 
if you like it, pay me $XX." I don't know how long the concept has been 
around, but it is firmly grounded in the community, now, I know. Everybody
skilled enough to get on usenet, download a program, compile it and run 
it knows what "shareware" is. 

So far as I know, "shareware" as a concept is unique in this world. To 
address the concerns of one poster---no, nobody in his right mind would 
give away a book and put a notice in Chapter 3 saying, "Like this book?
Gimme $10 if you want to read more," because the concept of shareware 
does not exist in the reading community. Similar arguments apply to buying 
cars on a "shareware" agreement and some of the other specious analogies 
which I've seen here. The nearest analogy I can see is the "honor boxes" 
used by some small newspapers, the open racks with a tin can with a slit 
in the side wherein one is suppsoed to deposit his nickel or dime or quarter 
or whatever before he picks up a newspaper. Those boxes generally aren't 
watched, and they're wide open to the air---anybody could walk off 
with a paper if they wanted to, without paying. The publishers 
rely on people's sense of honor to pay if they take one. However, 
even that analogy is quite imprecise, because you have to pay before 
you read the paper---not after the paper has been used, as 
is the case with shareware. 

So you can't argue the principles of shareware by analogy to other 
vendor-consumer agreements. There just isn't anything sufficiently like
it in the world to compare it to. 

(Just for the record, I don't think any shareware license could be legally
binding. It would be unenforceable... How do you prove that the program
was used? 

(But the law and morality don't always coincide. A man I knew who is 
a lawyer and former judge... an *excellent* lawyer and *excellent* judge ...
is fond of saying, "When you go into a courtroom, you do not get justice. You
get law.")

The people who are saying, "You're taking up *my* disk space and *my* phone
time" sound to me like they're rationalizing something they know is wrong. 
I haven't seen any stories here about shareware overwriting valuable 
non-newsgroup files, or newsgroups growing *real* big to the point where 
they need cleaning up (as happened to us), and the news 
administrator going in and saying, "Lo and behold, most of this is 
shareware." 

As far as shareware violating the "noncommercial" spirit of Usenet---
from what I've seen, that "noncommercial" rule is an attempt to 
rationalize the already-existing customs of the net. Help-wanted ads 
and product announcements are already allowed. The idea here is to 
prevent the ads, news releases and sales pitches from overwhelming the 
free discussion. As with many "laws," (or regulations or guidelines,
or whatever), we have a custom in place which is difficult to express 
in words, and the rule-writers are doing the best they can to express 
it in words. Doing a poor job of it too, frankly---but I mean no 
criticism of the writers-of-the-rules---it's a tough job and I doubt
anybody could have expressed the custom better.  

Hasn't shareware been on the net a while? Isn't it part of the customs
of newsgroups?

If there is a problem, then perhaps there should be a comp.shareware
newgroup, or hierarchy of some kind, to which shareware would be 
directed. Then, if you hate shareware that much, you don't have 
to subscribe.

Two disclaimers, in addition to my customary one below:
1--I'm not a lawyer.
2--Yes, Ross Greenberg, who seems to have initiated this discussion, is 
a co-worker and a friend. But if I disagreed with him, I'd say so, or 
at least keep my mouth shut. He happens to be right here, I think.


-- 
                      Mitch     Voice: (516) 562-5758    
                  wagner@utoday.UUCP or wagner@utoday.uu.net
              These opinions are mine and are my responsibility,
                     not my employers' or anyone else's.