🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Mar16.025655.23368@agate.berkeley.edu> 
lippin@jell-o.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) writes:
> Recently meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) wrote:
> 
> >Let me make my major point first: Using shareware without paying is
> >(morally, at least) theft, and on a par with shoplifting.
> 
> If this were true, then, to an ethical person, shareware would differ
> from commercial software only in that it is distributed over public
> networks and bulletin boards.  I would then consider the distribution
> to be an unreasonable abuse of these services.

Whether it is unreasonable or not is up to the organizations making the 
networks available. However, all shareware I have seen is quite clear on 
the point of payment: If you continue to use the product after trying it 
out, the price is xx$.

Some networks charge for the distribution (e.g. the commercial bboards, or 
the shareware disk sellers), others do not charge in a way traceable to a 
particular distribution (e.g. the internet)

> Using a piece of shareware is like going to see Shakespeare in the
> park -- its creators have appropriated public resources to bring you
> their product, and this appropriation is acceptable since they are
> providing a public service: a free product.

The analogy with a park is misleading as stated, since it is ambiguous. 
Some events done in public areas are freely open, some with donations 
requested, and others are open only to a paying audience. The fact that a 
performance is on public ground does not by itself indicate a particular 
means of remuneration.  Or should transportation by trucks be free since 
trucks use public land (the roads) and provide a public service?

-- Sigurd