🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <328@spectra.COM> scott@spectra (Tim Scott) writes:
>What would halt the spread of crippleware would be the same
>thing that halted the spread of copy protection. IMO.

And what is that?
1) Refusal of people to buy copy-protected programs-- in this case, it
would be a refusal to download crippleware... But for those of us with
access to flat-rate BBSs or ftp sites or c.s.m.binaries on someone else's
tab, that doesn't make sense.
2) Refusal of reviewers to give copy protected programs a review
Reviewers ignore shareware, including crippleware, for the most part.
3) Widespread availablity of tools and methods to defeat copy protection
Would this be legal in the case of crippleware?  (i.e. could I post a message
explaining exactly how MacPassword could be made fully functional, without
fear of legal action against me)
Is it ethical to tell people how to use a product without paying for it, as
that is the only use for info on defeating crippleware (unlike the many uses
for defeating copy protection)?
What about 'commercial' crippleware?
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?