🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't think people are understanding what I am saying.  I agree that
shareware licences, like shrinkwrap licences, are not binding, in that
you are not bound to the specific terms and prices involved in these.

At the same time, it is try that if you copy a copyrighted work without
explicit permission of the author, then you are in violation of copyright.

The question is not whether you are bound to pay the specific fee, it's
whether you are in violation of the copyright.  Violation of a copyright
doesn't prescribe any specific fee.  It's up to a court to decide, in
the end, what you pay if you violate a copyright.


So forget about the shareware licence terms.  Only one matters.  That's
the one that tells you how you may copy the program without violating
the copyright.   And that's the term you must obey, within reason, if you
want to obey the law.

To get a firm answer beyond this, we need a judge, not speculation.
The case of "use" is still very unclear.  While recent laws do indeed
specify that a licence can't prohibit certain kinds of use by the holder
of a valid copy, could anybody quote the actual law that says that
the copyright holder does get to specify if there can be any use or not?


Finally, many people seem to think that the shareware terms are binding
if you download from a BBS.

Can somebody who agrees with that (which is really the whole shareware
concept, except for actual disk swapping) tell me why they think it is
different if you:

	o) Arrange for your site to be fed a 'newsgroup' which has a
	   public policy of permitting shareware.

	o) Arrange for that material to be transmitted to your machine.

	o) Subscribe to that group on your machine.

	o) Notice a shareware package, and copy it to a private directory

	o) Unpack the program in that directory and compile it for use.


Why would you argue that shareware copyright is valid if you download
from a BBS, but not valid in the above case?

-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473