🚀 go-pugleaf

Most of the arguments I have seen against paying for posted shareware center 
around the theme that "since my site has paid for transportation of this
software without being asked to, then I have the right to use this software
without paying for it either".

I don't think it works that way.  I am not a lawyer, and maybe the laws
have changed, but the last time I had cause to look something like this up it
was explained as follows:

	Presume Farmer Bill has a cow which gets loose in Farmer George's
	corn crop.  The cow eats some of the corn.  George, being somewhat
	upset at loosing a part of his livelyhood, asks Bill to pay for the
	corn lost; Bill refuses. George decides to keep the cow in lieu of
	payment by Farmer Bill.

	According to my last understanding of the law, George MUST return
	the cow to Bill, or face legal action.

Translated:

	Bill writes a program which he posts as shareware to Usenet News.
	This uses some of George's resources, which he is upset about paying
	for.  Without even asking Bill, he keeps the sharware in payment for
	the cost of the resources.

	Similarly, George MUST "return" the shareware, he is not permitted
	to keep the program in lieu of payment for damages perceived..

In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived.
In both cases, George is WRONG to do so, and must "return" the property.  In
the case of "shareware", George is permitted to "return" the property by
deleting all of his copies of it.

IF the shareware is properly copyrighted, and contains a reasonable license
which states the terms under which you may use it, including what you are
requested to pay for it.  Then I believe that you are legally, and perhaps
morally, obligated to pay the fee requested for its use, or you must remove it
forthwith!

If you're that worried about the transport costs that YOUR system incurred, you
MIGHT be able to calculate and deduct the transport costs YOUR system incurred.
Which (unless you call long distance) will probably come to something less than
25 cents.  You CANNOT deduct transport costs for the entire network, as you did
not PAY the entire network's transport costs; and your calculations had better
have hard facts to back them up.

If the author accepts your payment, by cashing the check, then you're free.
However, the author has the right to refuse that payment and insist that you
pay in full.  In which case you would have to bill separately for your costs.

Is it really worth a quarter to get less than a quarter back?

On the side of the putative purchasers of shareware, I can see that they might
feel they were being 'done out'.  But using shareware without paying for it is
rather like picking pencils out of a blind man's cup without paying for it.
Neither the author of the software, nor the blind man, is likely to be able to
do much about legal retaliation; but it still isn't "right".  Now don't start
with that argument about pencils being property and software not being property.
Both ARE property, albeit different, and stealing is ILLEGAL.

Now, I have sharware, and I've paid for that which I felt was truly usefull.
The one that comes to mind now is "Whap!", a set of programs for quick and
efficient navigation of Compu$erve forums.  I used it for quite a while, and
finally decided that I was going to keep using CI$ and Whap!, so I paid for it.

Other shareware I have eventually come to the conclusion that I would never
want to use again, so I've deleted it.

There's still more shareware that is waiting for me to come to a decision.
The main reason for hanging onto such shareware is that I generally use it so
seldom that I haven't decided whether it's really worth it.  Eventually, I'll
decide that it is, or isn't, and handle it accordingly.

FOR THE AUTHORS....

You have a problem getting people to pay for the software you write.

You have to ask yourself WHY they're not paying.  The answer COULD be that
the software simply isn't "good enough", or that they don't have enough
incentive even if it is "good enough".

So, how do you encourage them?

If you're SURE the software is well written, easy to use, and USEFULL, then
you can make it "irritating" in some minor fashion.  "Whap!" is an excelent
example of this.  The authors put a "delay" function into the product, such
that when you switched functions, it posted a screen (red on black) asking
you to pay for the software.  When you did pay for it, your copy of the
software was "registered", which removed the irritating delay.  The authors
made a nearly fully functional program available, so that you could get the
full feeling of the software, while making it only mildly irritating to use.

If you're not so sure of the quality of your work, then don't make it even
more irritating to use, offer updates!  Or better yet, if the product is
large enough to justify it, offer a professionally printed manual!  (In
addition to the update.)

Yes, this will probably raise the price, and you may incur some costs,
but you have to offer the user some REASON to pay for the software, beyond
the software itself!  You won't get much money otherwise, since there are
far too many people who have "exceptionally flexible" morals.

					Enjoy!
	"Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?"	| Edwin Wiles
    Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare.	| NetExpress, Inc.
  ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles	| 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
       ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM	| Vienna, VA 22182