🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Sigh.  USENET is *NOT* public domain.  It's not even a public network.
>It is *not* noncommercial.  Saying it won't make it so.  I have, and have
>given, counterexamples.  Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty
>darn good way of disproving a thesis.  So stop saying it!
>
>Some people are missing the point of shareware over a net like USENET.
>It's to benefit the *readers*, not just the poster and/or author.  If it
>didn't benefit the readers, then it would not be appropriate to post.
>
>So to suggest that sites be paid as middlemen in a software distribution
>channel is silly.  It misses the point of shareware, which is that the
>users get to pass it around for their benefit.  The authors would be glad
>to send a disk to any customer in the mail who places an order.
>
>The shareware concept came about to benefit the users as well as the author.

Agreed, but it's hard not to sympathize with the systems-owner who feels
ripped off.... that he's giving away access to his system so that another
person can make a buck that he won't see. If enough people feel that way, 
it can make the net unpopular, make sites less willing to do their parts
and contribute to the greater good, etc., which could undermine the net.

I guess the solution to this is to set up a call for votes on the quesiton
of whether shareware should be distributed on the net. (NOTE: I am *not*
volunteering to do this. I am quite satisfied with he status quo myself---
and BTW, I don't write shareware myself... I'm not even a programmer... 
so I have no financial interest in how the question is decided.)

How long has shareware been on the net, anyway?







-- 
                      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.