Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!mit-eddie!
bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stl!stc!tcom!pete
From: p...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1, part 1 of 15, etc
Message-ID: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Date: 4 Jan 90 23:13:14 GMT
References: <74065@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: STC Telecoms Ltd, New Southgate, London, United Kingdom
Lines: 38

Am I alone in thinking that the distribution over USENET of this
self-proclaimed commercial package is a bit of a cheek? 

I'm not for a moment going to dispute the usefulness of the package or
the work that Brad and Co have put into it.

But let's not forget - USENET costs money. For many people, that money
is part of someone else's budget and they don't have to worry about it.
For others, like myself, that money comes out of their own pockets in
phone bills. 

The shar files for newsclip total around 750K - a non-trivial amount,
representing around 1 hour of phone time at 1200 baud with a 
commpressed news feed (are *you* going to buy me a faster modem?).
It's bad enough when firms send you unsolicited material through
the post - at least *they* pay for the delivery of it.

Would anyone like to guess the *global* cost of this distribution?

British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post.
So, Looking Glass Software. The unsolicited copy of Newsclip that you
sent to me now awaits collection at your expense at some mutually agreed
time. If you do not collect the goods within 6 months then title and
ownership of them will revert to me. A storage charge may be payable.

Peter Kendell

P.S.	Why not distribute the software under the GNU licence and make your
	money by selling really well produced printed manuals for it?

P.P.S.	Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their*
	software?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|		  Peter Kendell <p...@tcom.stc.co.uk>	        	   |
|				...{uunet!}mcvax!ukc!stc!pete		   |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!
henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1, part 1 of 15, etc
Message-ID: <6734@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 5 Jan 90 11:02:24 GMT
References: <74065@uunet.UU.NET> <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 27

In article <1...@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> p...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) writes:
: P.P.S.  Why don't Larry Wall or the FSF try to charge everyone for *their*
: 	  software?

Primarily because I'm out to set a standard, not to make a buck.  Those
who try to make bucks very frequently find that they neither make bucks
nor set standards.  A commercial product has increase the standard of
living by a certain percentage to be viable, and I seem to specialize
in doing things that improve the standard of living just a little less
than that magical percentage.  In other words, I tend to write things
that people wouldn't pay much for because they already have other ways
to do it.

But if it's free, and noticeably better, most everyone wants it, and nobody
has an excuse for staying in the dark ages.

If ksh had been free, I suspect that very few of us would be using csh
any more.  If patch had been a commercial offering, you wouldn't find
it on many machines yet.

You CAN set standards while making bucks, but it's a much tougher row to how.
Well, I should revise that.  It's easy to set standards.  What's hard is
to set a single standard.  Look at Unix.   :-)

On the other hand, making bucks has something to be said for it...

Larry Wall
lw...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!
brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!well!jef
From: j...@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1, part 1 of 15, etc
Message-ID: <15398@well.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 90 04:38:19 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer <j...@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal
Lines: 12

In the referenced message, p...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) wrote:
}British law is clear about unsolicited items sent through the post.

Of course.  I've never seen any shareware that claims you have a legal
obligation to pay; the claimed obligation is moral.  And since I, like
you, do not agree with this obligation, I would gleefully use newsclip
and not pay if I felt the slightest need for it.
---
Jef

  Jef Poskanzer  j...@well.sf.ca.us  {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
                     "So young, so bad, so what."

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
utoday!greenber
From: green...@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Summary: Pay for shareware, keep it flowing.
Message-ID: <1134@utoday.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 90 15:56:41 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: green...@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY
Lines: 33

In article <15...@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <j...@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
>
>Of course.  I've never seen any shareware that claims you have a legal
>obligation to pay; the claimed obligation is moral.  And since I, like
>you, do not agree with this obligation, I would gleefully use newsclip
>and not pay if I felt the slightest need for it.

As a shareware author, allow me to be the first to tell you that your
attitude sucks?  The reason I come out with shareware is because of the
honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to
continue to develop software.  There are people like Larry Wall who opt
to produce freeware - and that's great. The net owes their thanks to
Larry and those like him.

Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it.  My free stuff you
can use without paying for.  But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for
the shareware. Don't like it, then don't it.  That's pretty simple.

But, if you're going to proclaim you're dishonest, unethical and willing
to use another's intellectual property without paying for it (that's
called theft), then please do the shareware authors of the world a favor?

Keep your ethics, or lack thereof, to yourself? It disgusts those of us
who *do* rely on the honest and ethical people of the world..

Ross


-- 
Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today!   green...@utoday.UUCP
             594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber  MCI: greenber   CIS: 72461,3212
  To subscribe, send mail to c...@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!
caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!sumax!quick!amc-gw!pilchuck!ssc!fyl
From: f...@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware
Summary: my $.02 worth
Message-ID: <372@ssc.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jan 90 18:03:22 GMT
References: <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> <N7..ACxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: SSC, Inc., Seattle, WA
Lines: 44

There are two sides to shareware that are very similar to the two sides of
why you need to lock your car.  I have a product that is almost ready for
the DOS world that I am seriously considering distributing as shareware.
That decision isn't made yet but here are my thoughts.

I originally wrote the program for my own use.  (It is a smart dictionary
that translates Spanish words into English, conjugates verbs and knows how
to un-conjugate a verb form to get back to an infinitive.)  I wrote it
because I want to learn more Spanish and this, for me, is a good learning
tool.

Along the way I got interested in marketing it because it is useful to
others.  But, the difference between something that I use and a package
with documentation that will run on every DOS system in the world is
significant.  In fact, it was written on a UNIX system and I have no
interest in DOS at all for my use.  So, at this point I have invested
hundreds of hours in the part of the program that is of no use to me.
In other words, I have an investment -- both time and money -- in making
it a commercial product.

Now, I would like the see the maximum number of people use the product.
I also believe that people should have a chance to try something before
they buy it.  Shareware satisfies both of these criteria.  A dial-up demo
would satisfy the second.  The big difference is that to make this work
with a method other than shareware I need to spend thousands of dollars in
marketing.  I would rather put that money into the product itself.  I
appreciate the fact that if I use the BBS route to distribute the product
that I am taking advantage of investment on the part of others.  But I
offer a better deal because of the money I save.

Other alternative are to distribute crippled products.  This seems like a
real waste.  People don't get the real product and yet I take advantage of
the free distribution channels to advertize the product.

I have send out beta versions of the program and asked in the questionaire
what people though of shareware vs. commercial distribution.  The answers
came back about 50% in favor of each.  I also notice that the newest
version of PC-File is not shareware.

I would like to encourage further discussion -- I really do want to pick
the answer that is best for the product and the users.
-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
     uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl            (206)527-3385

Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!mcsun!ukc!stc!pete
From: p...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware
Summary: Kendell adds his 2p worth
Message-ID: <2706@arran.tcom.stc.co.uk>
Date: 12 Jan 90 19:13:07 GMT
References: <1134@utoday.UUCP> <15410@well.UUCP> <N7..ACxds13@ficc.uu.net> 
<17608@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: p...@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)
Followup-To: comp.sources.d
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.
Lines: 46

As I started this debate, I'd like to add a few thoughts and maybe clarify
my original posting.

    - It's a pity this had to degenerate to name-calling. Perhaps it was
      inevitable, given that it's an ethical/moral issue.

    - It seems to be clear that (mostly) people don't pay shareware fees.
      (someone once posted a package with a request for a picture
       postcard from anyone who used it - cute). 

    - Someone suggested that the actual cost per kilobyte of USENET postings
      was low, as most traffic was carried over the internet or by UUCP over
      local connections. This may well be true in the USA (although it ignores
      the overheads involved. Think of all that disk space and cpu time. It
      all comes out of capital depreciation and maintenance costs) but it
      is not true for the rest of the world. Despite the privatisation of
      British Telecom ( :-) ), local calls still cost money here and, I 
      believe, in other European countries. And there's the transatlantic
      shipping cost.

    - I mentioned Larry Wall and the FSF as providers of good software for
      free. The question, why don't these guys impose charges?, was 
      rhetorical, but thanks anyway Larry.

    - I have posted software myself, in a minor sort of way. I would not
      have done so had I not had the example of others to follow.

    - I mentioned British law. I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer who knows
      his rights, but I should have said *English* law. I've no idea what
      the situation is in Scotland.

    - I shall not be using newsclip - it's safe in its shrinkwrap. 

    - It's possible to say that I'm not *forced* to take any newsgroup,
      and so it's up to me whether I collect material from my newsfeed.
      True, but unhelpful when material I don't want appears in a newsgroup
      that I do want. Does the net need alt.shareware? Or should newsclip
      have been announced in comp.newprod rather than being posted?

    - And lastly. Where did the term shareware come from? What is being
      shared (that isn't being shared by PD distribution)? Is it too late
      for me to put an ad in the Times - "Make me rich - send me ten pounds"?

    Cheers,

	Peter

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!
bstempleton
From: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Keywords: shareware freeware morals ethics knowledge
Message-ID: <33686@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 90 20:05:17 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> 
<1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> <1138@utoday.UUCP> 
<2350@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <3031@netxcom.DHL.COM> <13741@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 38
Posted: Sat Jan 27 21:05:17 1990

This debate, like all debates on intellectual property, seems to revolve around
confusion between the physical bits that are transmitted and stored, and the
software or I.P. itself.

They are not the same thing, and more to the point, the physical bits are
the unimportant part and the software the important part.

Copyright law allows the owner of the I.P. to dictate how the posessors of
the physical bits may copy and use them.  People don't seem to understand this
fundamental point.

All you got "unsolicited in the mail" were some bits.  You are free to keep
them, just as you are free to keep the unsolicited other samples you might
get.  Nobody can bill you for them and expect payment.  Enjoy.

But how you may copy them -- and that includes copying them from your disk
into your CPU's memory -- is governed by copyright law.

Few people are sent "unsolicited in the mail" the important part of shareware,
namely the licence to copy and use it.  That can't be sent in the mail,
only granted by the author.

Most shareware authors let you freely do what you want with the bits when it
comes to copying them for other people.  Give 'em away, sell 'em, whatever
you like.  But they restict the copying and use involving execution of
the program.

If you deliberately violate the stated restrictions you are in violation
of the law.  Call it theft or infringement, it doesn't matter.  It *is*
illegal and many would say unethical or immoral.

The word deliberate is important.  I can't put a copyright on this article
forbidding uunet from copying it, post it to them and sue them.

Nobody is likely to be sued over shareware, of course.  But it should work.
Too bad it doesn't. 
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!deimos!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!watmath!bstempleton
From: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 00:55:55 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Reply-To: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31
Posted: Sat Feb 10 01:55:55 1990

I guess I will have to give up asking this question.  Nobody has yet to
say what the difference between copying a file from the news spools on
(usually somebody else's) machine and downloading from a BBS, yours or
somebody else's.

The reason is that there isn't a difference.  Both are non-passive actions.
Both get you a copy of the software which the author has permitted you to
get.   If you go to the trouble and cost of subscribing to USENET (somebody
called USENET unsolicited!  Tee hee) and shareware comes to you through that
route, it's because the author wanted you to have a copy.  If you download
shareware from a BBS or get it at a swap fest, it's because the author
wanted you to have a copy.   No difference here.

And in both cases, it's pretty explicit that the author gave you this copy...
for evaluation.   If shareware via usenet is invalid, then so is shareware
by any other means, except an mutually agreed upon evaluation contract.

And if you want the law to require a mutually agreed evaluation contract
in all cases, then you're asking for a world of lawyers and of virtually
no good shareware.   You may get what you ask for.

To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has
ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid
restriction a copyright holder may place on copying.  We may never know.
None of use know, that's for sure.   I still think it is improper to
ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the
code that has the value, not the bits on the disk.  This "unsolicited
book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because
disks cost that.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!
torsqnt!tmsoft!robohack!woods
From: wo...@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <1990Feb11.164053.27668@robohack.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 90 16:40:53 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu>
	<2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: R. H. Lathwell Associates:  Elegant Communications, Inc.
Lines: 65
Posted: Sun Feb 11 17:40:53 1990

In article <34...@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu 
(Brad Templeton) writes:
> And in both cases, it's pretty explicit that the author gave you this copy...
> for evaluation.
> [....]
> To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has
> ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid
> restriction a copyright holder may place on copying.  We may never know.

Whoa!  This is where it gets sticky.  WARNING, I am not a lawyer, and
I haven't actually read the copyright law since the early 70's.
However, I don't believe it is as fuzzy as you say.  I recently read a
comment by a lawyer which stated that it was unwise for a software
author to try to attach any special considerations to the copyright
notice, except the standard "All rights reserved..." notice.

Copyright law protects an author from those who would make
un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who
would claim the work to be their own.

Second, and most important in this argument, is the fact that for an
author to protect his copyright, he must make specific and obvious
effort to prevent un-authorized copying of the work.

Everyone on the shareware side of the argument seems to be missing
the meaning of these little points.

Shareware seems to be protected only by copyright.  Contracts and
licenses do not seem feasible.  I.e. the only protection under the law
for shareware authors is copyright.

If this is the case, shareware authors appear to be doing the exact
opposite of what the law requires them to do to protect their
copyright.  They are making copies of their product freely available,
and encouraging further copying!  The only thing left for copyright
law to protect is the ownership of the work and prevent another from
claiming the work to be his own.

> [....]  I still think it is improper to
> ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the
> code that has the value, not the bits on the disk.  This "unsolicited
> book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because
> disks cost that.

Fine, you have your "morals" and I have mine.  Where software is
involved, mine definitely lean towards those of the FSF.  I do write
software for profit, but under contract agreements and such.  I have
not, and probably will not ever write a piece of software which I
intend to become a product for profit in and of itself.  On the other
hand, I would not turn down financial benefit offered for this
software in the case where such benefit did not restrict the further
distribution of said software.  The party which offered the benefit
would certainly get superior service and support.

There is one more interesting little point I should make:  I would not
dissuade others from supplying service and support for my software in
trade for financial benefit (as per the FSF philosophy).  It is my
guess that shareware authors are trying to do just that.  They believe
software should be easily available (but not completely free), and
that they should be given the exclusive right to service and support
their own creations.  Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
-- 
						Greg A. Woods

woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET}
+1 416 443-1734 [h]   +1 416 595-5425 [w]   VE3-TCP   Toronto, Ontario; CANADA

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!utoday!greenber
From: green...@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <1235@utoday.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 03:57:54 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<1990Feb11.164053.27668@robohack.UUCP>
Reply-To: green...@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY
Lines: 102
Posted: Mon Feb 12 04:57:54 1990

wo...@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>
>
>Copyright law protects an author from those who would make
>un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who
>would claim the work to be their own.

Right.  The "All Rights Reserved" clause means that all of the rights,
even those not specifically mentioned belong with the author.  Now, the
author may make special consideration and permit persons to copy their
creation provided they follow certain guidelines.  Could they restrict
a person who follows those guidelines because they don;t like the person,
or don;t like the person's politics?  Probably not. But, unless you follow
whatever restrictions the author places on the copying of his or her
creation, then you are in violation of their Copy Right.



>
>Second, and most important in this argument, is the fact that for an
>author to protect his copyright, he must make specific and obvious
>effort to prevent un-authorized copying of the work.

I can't speak for all software authors, but a good percentage of my
assistants time is spent going through catalogs of shareware and looking
for persons selling my code without my permission.  They are contacted and
given a choice to sell according to my guidelines, to no longer sell, or
be sued over copyright infringement.  I have two cases in copyright
infringement right now, because they refused to stop selling my code
when I requested that they come in line with my copyright restrictions.
Most shareware authors I know will do as much to protect their rights, too.

>
>Everyone on the shareware side of the argument seems to be missing
>the meaning of these little points.

No, we live with hose points everyday.  It's our income, and our business.
That's why I get so infruiated when I see somebody saying "Hey! Use that
guy's code without paying for it!"

>
>Shareware seems to be protected only by copyright.  Contracts and
>licenses do not seem feasible.  I.e. the only protection under the law
>for shareware authors is copyright.

Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use.  The software author
owns both and may grant them as they see fit.  But, giving out blanket
rights on one does not give out blanket rights on the other.  They are
unrelated with a common intersection only by the author's leave.

>
>If this is the case, shareware authors appear to be doing the exact
>opposite of what the law requires them to do to protect their
>copyright.  They are making copies of their product freely available,
>and encouraging further copying!  The only thing left for copyright
>law to protect is the ownership of the work and prevent another from
>claiming the work to be his own.

Most shareware has a statement such as:  "You may distribute this shareware
in its entirity, but not for commercial gain.  If you wish to distribute
this software for any fee whatsoever, you must have <author's> written
permission to do so."

This is merely a loosening of the "All Rights Reserved" clause.

>
>There is one more interesting little point I should make:  I would not
>dissuade others from supplying service and support for my software in
>trade for financial benefit (as per the FSF philosophy).  It is my
>guess that shareware authors are trying to do just that.  They believe
>software should be easily available (but not completely free), and
>that they should be given the exclusive right to service and support
>their own creations.  Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Again, I can;t speak for all shareware authors.  In my case, I encourage
as many people as possible to try my code out.  If they like it, they'll
continue to use it.  If they continue to use it, they'll make it a part
of their normal computing environment.  When that occurs, I expect them to
pay my $10 registration fee.

Other's may not sell my software without my permission, and I will not
give that permission to anyone who would sell a disk containing
my code for more than $10.

However, nothing prohibits them from selling that disk for $10, then
offering a service or support contract for $1000/month if someone is so
inclined to pay them.  For the $10 registration fee they pay me (that is
in addition to whatever fee they paid to get the disk containing my code),
I provide them with full telephone, E-mail, Snail mail and any other support
I can.  They get updates, when available, for a discounted fee. 

What allows me to provide such code and such services for as little as I do
is the continued support of some of the ethical people out there.  The
lack of support by those lacking in the ethics to adhere to my wishes causes
me to raise my price.


-- 
Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today!   green...@utoday.UUCP
             594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber  MCI: greenber   CIS: 72461,3212
  To subscribe, send mail to c...@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
natinst!rpp386!jfh
From: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <17923@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 13 Feb 90 13:54:12 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<1990Feb11.164053.27668@robohack.UUCP> <1235@utoday.UUCP>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 69
Posted: Tue Feb 13 14:54:12 1990

In article <1...@utoday.UUCP> green...@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
>wo...@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>>Copyright law protects an author from those who would make
>>un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who
>>would claim the work to be their own.
>
>Right.  The "All Rights Reserved" clause means that all of the rights,
>even those not specifically mentioned belong with the author.  Now, the
>author may make special consideration and permit persons to copy their
>creation provided they follow certain guidelines.  Could they restrict
>a person who follows those guidelines because they don;t like the person,
>or don;t like the person's politics?  Probably not. But, unless you follow
>whatever restrictions the author places on the copying of his or her
>creation, then you are in violation of their Copy Right.

USENET is not the same as the floppy distributors you are probably
dealing with.  When you post an article to USENET, you have caused
it be copied onto every system on the network.  You =can't= restrict
it from being copied onto my machine, unless I tell you in advance
I have no intention of complying and you monkey with the article
header.

The entire issue of the recipient having a legal copy is mute - you
gave me the copy I have.  The only thing left to argue is ownership
and redistribution.  I don't want to own it, and I don't plan on
selling it to anyone else [ or if I plan on redistributing it, I
plan on redistributing it according to the normal set of guidelines ]

All that remains to argue is the license, and it isn't legally valid.

>Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use.  The software author
>owns both and may grant them as they see fit.  But, giving out blanket
>rights on one does not give out blanket rights on the other.  They are
>unrelated with a common intersection only by the author's leave.

Well, the license is invalid.  There is a legal term for holding someone
to an agreement based on some arbitrary action they took.  The most
common example is public parking - the "not liable no matter what" type
statements are also invalid [ go ask in misc.legal ].

>Most shareware has a statement such as:  "You may distribute this shareware
>in its entirity, but not for commercial gain.  If you wish to distribute
>this software for any fee whatsoever, you must have <author's> written
>permission to do so."
>
>This is merely a loosening of the "All Rights Reserved" clause.

Fine, and that part of the =COPYRIGHT= is still valid.

>Again, I can;t speak for all shareware authors.  In my case, I encourage
>as many people as possible to try my code out.  If they like it, they'll
>continue to use it.  If they continue to use it, they'll make it a part
>of their normal computing environment.  When that occurs, I expect them to
>pay my $10 registration fee.

Presuming they legally obtained the copy, the =LICENSE= requiring them
to send you the $10 is invalid.

>What allows me to provide such code and such services for as little as I do
>is the continued support of some of the ethical people out there.  The
>lack of support by those lacking in the ethics to adhere to my wishes causes
>me to raise my price.

And what allows others to distribute their shareware on USENET is the
continued support of unwitting companies and unversities being required
to be their distribution service.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tn...@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <15166@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Date: 13 Feb 90 18:26:24 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<2488@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<1990Feb11.164053.27668@robohack.UUCP> <1235@utoday.UUCP> <17923@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: tn...@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff)
Lines: 23
Posted: Tue Feb 13 19:26:24 1990

In article <17...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>And what allows others to distribute their shareware on USENET is the
>continued support of unwitting companies and unversities being required
>to be their distribution service.

Quite right, although it doesn't necessarily have to be unwitting.  An
institution (large, like MIT, or small, like me) can decide that the
benefits to THEM of receiving and passing on shareware outweigh the
costs.  Institutional networks exist for the convenience of their
consitituents, who may be happy to see shareware offerings arrive.

But the basic point is valid, and that's why all commercial product
distribution should be booted out of the core hierarchies.  Just because
some folks find it useful doesn't mean it should pollute the
noncommercial net core.

There is plenty of vigorous opportunity for expansion to new hierarchies
transmitted among consenting institutions.  The marketplace will enforce
survival there.  But the noncommercial core should be preserved.

I have seen zero followups along these lines of argument from the folks
nattering endlessly about copyrights and such, so I assume the point is
accepted.  If so, the policy issue is decided and we're down to chatter.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!husc6!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!
hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Keeping shareware out of the core newsgroups
Message-ID: <10252@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 15 Feb 90 08:12:18 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> <15166@bfmny0.UU.NET>
Organization: Grasshopper Group in San Francisco
Lines: 44
Posted: Thu Feb 15 09:12:18 1990

tn...@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) wrote:
>                              . . .that's why all commercial product
> distribution should be booted out of the core hierarchies.  Just because
> some folks find it useful doesn't mean it should pollute the
> noncommercial net core.

I agree 100%, and the last pronouncement I heard from Rich $alz, he
wasn't allowing shareware in comp.sources.unix.

I don't want to pay to move shareware around, even if it's source code
shareware.  If your product isn't good enough to *inspire me* to send
you money or improve your software, don't badger me to pay for it.

I don't want to pay to move binaries around either, and it's a constant
battle to explain this to the small-machine folks who want to post
binaries to comp.os.os2, or comp.sources.amiga, or whatever (which I
might want to read).

The approach of the Free Software Foundation is fine with me, by the
way.  That is:  anyone can use the code, anyone can even sell the code
(as long as they include the source) and they can sell it for whatever
the market will bear.  AND, if anyone (user of the software or not)
wants to support the creation of such software, you can send a donation
to the Foundation.  The ethics are voluntary, they do not club you over
the head.  From their one-person start, FSF is up to ten fulltime
people (as well as helpers all around the world) and is churning out
good, free software in source for Unix machines.  And it's all voluntary.

UC Berkeley's approach is another.  As long as they can get funding
from places that want to use their improved software versions, it's
fine with them if everyone else uses it for free.  The University
lawyers require that they put in a copyright keeping the University's
name in the code, but that's the only restriction (unless the code came
originally from AT&T, in which case it carries as many legal chains as
Marley's ghost).  As a result you'll find Berkeley's networking code in
every kind of system, from PC's on up to Crays.

The Unix & Usenix & Usenet tradition is that of these pioneers; let's
keep it that way.  The folks who want to bend your ear and bludgeon
your ethics for $10 a copy, while we-all pay for distribution, can stay
on low end BBS systems.  "Think of it as evolution in action."
-- 
John Gilmore      {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu      g...@toad.com
Just say *yes* to drugs.  If someone offers you a drug war, just say no.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!wyse!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Keeping shareware out of the core newsgroups
Message-ID: <G8S1667xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 15 Feb 90 17:25:48 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<15166@bfmny0.UU.NET> <10252@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 23
Posted: Thu Feb 15 18:25:48 1990

In article <10...@hoptoad.uucp> g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> I don't want to pay to move binaries around either, and it's a constant
> battle to explain this to the small-machine folks who want to post
> binaries to comp.os.os2, or comp.sources.amiga, or whatever (which I
> might want to read).

I think it might be a good idea to move these small-machine groups to a
new comp.micro second-level hierarchy.

> The approach of the Free Software Foundation is fine with me, by the
> way.

I don't see how the FSF differs, at least as far as the legality or morality
of distributing sources with legal hooks on it goes, from the "we demand
you pay for it" shareware. If anything, they ask for more from you. Surely
you can't attack payment in cash while defending payment in kind.

If Rich wants to keep shareware out of comp.sources.unix, that's his
perogative. But really he should follow the lead of the people who distribute
X and keep other restricted software out of there as well.

Myself, I don't care for any usage restrictions on software you claim to
be giving away. I'll not use newsclip nor news 3.0.
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz
From: rs...@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Keeping shareware out of the core newsgroups
Message-ID: <2276@litchi.bbn.com>
Date: 21 Feb 90 18:56:37 GMT
References: <13986@s.ms.uky.edu> <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> 
<15166@bfmny0.UU.NET> <10252@hoptoad.uucp> <G8S1667xds13@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation
Lines: 15
Posted: Wed Feb 21 19:56:37 1990

In <G8S1667xd...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>If Rich wants to keep shareware out of comp.sources.unix, that's his
>perogative. But really he should follow the lead of the people who distribute
>X and keep other restricted software out of there as well.

The "rules" for copyrighted software in comp.sources.unix are remarkably
simple:
	Any reader must be able to compile and use the source anywhere
	they want, without having to pay for it.  They must be able to
	pass it along to someone else.  There must be no time limits
	(archive sites are forever).

-- 
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rs...@uunet.uu.net.
Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!watmath!bstempleton
From: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 90 04:38:50 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com>
Reply-To: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 17
Posted: Thu Mar  1 05:38:50 1990

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

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!utoday!wagner
From: wag...@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <1340@utoday.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 90 21:35:16 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34720@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: wagner@.UUCP (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY
Lines: 42
Posted: Fri Mar  2 22:35:16 1990

In article <34...@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstemple...@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    
                  wag...@utoday.UUCP or wag...@utoday.uu.net
              These opinions are mine and are my responsibility,
                     not my employers' or anyone else's.     

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!iuvax!
watmath!bstempleton
From: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 90 19:23:18 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> <639@magnus.Hotline.Com>
Reply-To: bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27
Posted: Sun Mar  4 20:23:18 1990

If I said "USENET is a commercial" network I went a bit beyond what I meant.
What I thought I said was that USENET is not non-commercial, in that commercial
traffic is not barred -- or even discouraged in many cases -- on this network.

I don't have to provide documentation on a claim as to what USENET is not.
What has to be shown is that USENET is any particular thing.  The burden of
proof is on somebody who makes an assertion about what is, not on somebody
who denies it.

You can quote from news.announce.newusers all you like.  I wrote some of that
stuff directly, and helped in the writing of other parts of it.  Quote my
own stuff if you like.  It doesn't define what USENET is.  Those files are
simply volunteer works that a few people liked and turned into regular postings.
That's all.  I know, I was there.  They aren't official in any way, they were
never "approved."

Dozens of commercial activities take place on USENET.  Job postings, Ads,
announcements, tech support, people asking for help in their work, cars for
sale, rooms for rent, software updates and yes, shareware and lots of it
(with effectively no complaint prior to this debate.)  The burden of proof
lies with those who would argue that USENET follows their particular
ideology.  It's a tough burden, because USENET has no ideology that I have
seen in my 9 years on it -- other than that derived from the laws of the
nations it is in.

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

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!
hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Scareware
Message-ID: <10612@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 5 Mar 90 23:24:44 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Cygnus Support, Palo Alto
Lines: 35
Posted: Tue Mar  6 00:24:44 1990

bstemple...@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) wrote:
> Dozens of commercial activities take place on USENET.  Job postings, Ads,
> announcements, tech support, people asking for help in their work, cars for
> sale, rooms for rent, software updates and yes, shareware and lots of it

I see the car ads but I have seen VERY little shareware, and I've been
archiving most of the sources that have come over the net since 1982.
Perhaps Brad's "lots of" shareware is in comp.binaries, which hoptoad
does not accept or forward.

> (with effectively no complaint prior to this debate.)

I complained about it before, when a few shareware things came
through.  Also, I certainly count Rich $alz's prohibition on shareware
in comp.sources.unix as a "complaint".

Shareware is an idea for a particular mileau (tiny micros that only run
binaries).  The Unix answer to shareware is GNUware -- use it all you
want, pass it on to your friends, you get full source.  AND, if you
like it and want to contribute to its development, we accept donations
(of both money and technical effort).  The Free Software Foundation
runs completely on donations, sale of manuals, and sale of tapes.  Not
on fear and loathing.  On donations.  No wonder "scareware" isn't
popular in the Unix community.

If the Usenet gives you such a lousy "registration rate", why not
simply go where you are appreciated?  Trying to sell to people who
dislike your whole concept is not usually a good use of your time.
(I realize that the desire to sponge off other peoples' phone bills
is a powerful incentive to persevere in the face of this rejection.)
-- 
John Gilmore      {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu      g...@toad.com
 Boycott the census!  The government that invaded Central America does not
hesitate to break into "their own" census database to violate your privacy.
         Maximum penalty for refusing to answer:  $100, no jail.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!
mephisto!rutgers!texbell!ficc!peter
From: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 6 Mar 90 18:02:19 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 19
Posted: Tue Mar  6 19:02:19 1990

In article <10...@hoptoad.uucp> g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes
a bunch of stuff about shareware and FSFware.

GNUware and Shareware, while similar, are not directly comparable. Shareware
is basically an alternate form of commercial software. The advantages and
disadvantages of shareware have been debated at excruciating length. The
folks who use scary licences to try to push people to paying for their
shareware offerings are, IMO, fooling themselves. There are those of us who
distribute shareware with an "if you like it, send some cash" message. No
scary copyright notices.

FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that
it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they
require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line
of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining
about.

Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff,
or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain.
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!ccvax.ucd.ie!b_haughey
From: b_haug...@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie>
Date: 8 Mar 90 14:12:54 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: University College Dublin
Lines: 22
Posted: Thu Mar  8 15:12:54 1990

In article <TU129ZCxd...@ficc.uu.net>, pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <10...@hoptoad.uucp> g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes
> a bunch of stuff about shareware and FSFware.
> 
> FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that
> it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they
> require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line
> of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining
> about.
> 
> Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff,
> or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain.

GNUware is coercive ? That's utter rubbish. No one forces you to use it. The
only restriction on your use of it is that *you* in turn do not restrict
anyone else's rights. *That* is why it's not public domain, but rather is
governed by a very comprehensive copyright (actually, "copyleft"). 
To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't
like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ?

-- bjh
   Univrsity College Dublin, Ireland.      "There's no future in time travel"

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!
texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 10 Mar 90 03:44:24 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net> 
<796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie>
Reply-To: pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 12
Posted: Sat Mar 10 04:44:24 1990

> To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't
> like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ?

I have no problem with them retaining the rights to their code, and any
improvements. What I'm talking about is how the whole of any software that
contains any GNU code is considered as no more than such an improvement. That
includes (say) a 300K line compiler that happens to use GNU Getopt for
command line parsing.

Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
point.
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \  'U`
\_.--._/
      v

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <NELSON.90Mar10121402@image.clarkson.edu>
Date: 10 Mar 90 17:14:08 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com>
	<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp>
	<TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net> <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie>
	<HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: n...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Lines: 18
Posted: Sat Mar 10 18:14:08 1990
In-reply-to: peter@ficc.uu.net's message of 10 Mar 90 03:44:24 GMT

In article <HL42IIgg...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

   Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
   a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
   point.

No one is claiming rights to your code.  The copyleft simply insists
that you distribute copylefted code according to the copyleft.  So if
you're using a GNU library routine, you must respect its copyright.
It's no more (or less) unreasonable than requiring royalties.

I suppose you rail against libraries that require the payment of royalties
also, but I've never seen you do it.

--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!njin!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!frk
From: f...@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <1142@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: 11 Mar 90 04:52:51 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> 
<34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net> 
<796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie> <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: f...@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 22
Posted: Sun Mar 11 05:52:51 1990

In article <HL42IIgg...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
#
#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
#point.
#-- 
# _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <pe...@ficc.uu.net>.
#/      \  'U`
#\_.--._/
#      v

I am afraid that I do not see the point.  Especially since you trumpet
this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups.
It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a
petty little ankle biter is so very true.  For you to ask for toleration
of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of
toleration you display towards others.

Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for
this software you wrote (or product you created)?  How dare you?"

Frank Korzeniewski      (f...@mtxinu.com)

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp!deimos!rutgers!
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!geac!
censor!isgtec!robert
From: rob...@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <306@isgtec.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 90 18:05:57 GMT
References: <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob...@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne)
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga, Ontario
Lines: 45
Posted: Mon Mar 12 19:05:57 1990

In article <1...@mtxinu.UUCP> f...@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes:
>In article <HL42IIgg...@ficc.uu.net> pe...@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
>#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
>#point.
>I am afraid that I do not see the point.  Especially since you trumpet
>this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups.
>It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a
>petty little ankle biter is so very true.  For you to ask for toleration
>of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of
>toleration you display towards others.
Having a bad day Frank?  I admit I don't read all news groups but any
postings of seen of Peters where reasoned arguments supporting his
view;  I've never, for instance, seen him call anybody a "petty little
ankle biter".   (aside:  Don't ya just *really* hate people who post
flames with redirection to alt.flame!)

>Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for
>this software you wrote (or product you created)?  How dare you?"
Actually his statement is equivalent to "What, you want ALL the money from
this software I wrote (or product I created)?  How dare you?".

I have no problems with the existance of FSF;  I don't agree with it,
and hence I don't use it.  BUT it really bothers me that people keep
misrepresenting what FSF software is.

Freeware is: "here it is, do with it what you want".

FSFware is: "here it is, use it however you want, but if distribute
modified FSFware or anything that includes any FSFware, it is then FSFware,
and you MUST distribute the source for media costs forever and ever".

Shareware is "here it is, it's mine so if you try it out and want to
continue to use it you must send me money".

Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and
you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please"

Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
Only freeware has NO restrictions.
Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.

Rob.
-- 
Robert A. Osborne   {...uunet!mnetor,...utzoo}!lsuc!isgtec!robert 

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!
mintaka!ogicse!caesar.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Message-ID: <7401@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 13 Mar 90 18:53:16 GMT
References: <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <306@isgtec.UUCP>
Reply-To: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 62
Posted: Tue Mar 13 19:53:16 1990

I'd like to comment on what I think are a couple of minor misapprehensions:

In article <3...@isgtec.UUCP> rob...@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes:
: Freeware is: "here it is, do with it what you want".
: 
: FSFware is: "here it is, use it however you want, but if distribute
: modified FSFware or anything that includes any FSFware, it is then FSFware,
: and you MUST distribute the source for media costs forever and ever".

The GPL doesn't actually say "media costs".  It says, in one spot, "You may
charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," and in another
spot, "except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution".  I would
interpret this to mean (or at least interpret this to be interpretable
as meaning) that if you have to hire someone at $35,000 a year to make the
distribution, and you expect to distribute 10 copies in that year, a nominal
charge would be $3500 plus media costs.  I exaggerate slightly, of course.  :-)

: Shareware is "here it is, it's mine so if you try it out and want to
: continue to use it you must send me money".
: 
: Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and
: you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please"

Please send me $100,000 if you like Perl and if you are a nice guy...   :-)

: Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
: Only freeware has NO restrictions.
: Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.

Two points to make here.  First, the GPL doesn't say you have to give
your code to FSF.  It merely says it has to be distributed under the
terms of the same license.  You can retain ownership of your code.

This leads to the second point, which is that you should make another
class of software, which I'd call GPLware.  I use the GPL for Perl, not
because I'm interested in giving Perl to FSF (I'm not), nor because I
want to force everyone to give their code to me (I don't), nor because
I think the GPL is perfect for any and every piece of software (it ain't).

I personally feel that FSF would better accomplish their goals by letting
their libraries be linked to proprietary products.  That's pragmatics, not
religion.  More like seduction than rape.

I don't think that small items such as might fit into a single Usenet
article should use the GPL.  It's like pretending /bin/true is proprietary,
which nobody in their right mind would do.

But for a package like Perl, which is self-contained and doesn't trigger
the so-called "virus", the GPL is close to what I want.  It provides
a framework of protections for everyone involved.  Since I own the
copyright, it doesn't prevent me from taking a piece of my own code and 
using it however I like (including giving it away with a copyright
instead of a copyleft).  But it prevents someone from taking the code
and making some kind of travesty of it, then duping innocent people
into thinking it's the real thing, and making them pay for their ignorance
to boot.  This has happened to me before.  I can't say that I like it.

But I agree that people shouldn't call each other ankle-biters in this
newsgroup.  (Even if it's true.  :-)

Larry "$GPL != $FSF" Wall
lw...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!ccvax.ucd.ie!b_haughey
From: b_haug...@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware and philanthropy)
Message-ID: <852.25ff8253@ccvax.ucd.ie>
Date: 15 Mar 90 11:53:55 GMT
References: <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <306@isgtec.UUCP>
Organization: University College Dublin
Lines: 26
Posted: Thu Mar 15 12:53:55 1990

In article <3...@isgtec.UUCP>, rob...@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes:
> I have no problems with the existance of FSF;  I don't agree with it,
> and hence I don't use it.  BUT it really bothers me that people keep
> misrepresenting what FSF software is.
> 
> 
> Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
> Only freeware has NO restrictions.
> Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.
> 

It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly
as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because
the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's
work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive
changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU
source code in the first place ?  [I'm not referring to Rob here]

People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary
users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial
products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate 
this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it.

Cheers,
bjh

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware and philanthropy)
Message-ID: <.CV+G0H@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 18 Mar 90 16:19:30 GMT
References: <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <306@isgtec.UUCP> 
<852.25ff8253@ccvax.ucd.ie>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 35
Posted: Sun Mar 18 17:19:30 1990

In article <852.25ff8...@ccvax.ucd.ie> b_haug...@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) 
writes:
>In article <3...@isgtec.UUCP>, rob...@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes:
>> Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
>> Only freeware has NO restrictions.
>> Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.
>It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly
>as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because
>the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's
>work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive
>changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU
>source code in the first place ?  [I'm not referring to Rob here]

The FSF won't let me distribute MY work freely if it includes a small
part of their work. They require me to include the whole of my work
under their terms. The whole of my program falls under their license
just because I (possibly unknowingly) used their getopt routine, for
example.

I'm not interested in making money from their code. I don't believe they
should be able to force me to support their utopia, either.

>People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary
>users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial
>products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate 
>this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it.

Go read the GNU Manifesto again. The FSF exists to make Stallman's
utopia a reality. He's welcome to the idea, but don't force me into the
same mold.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
attctc, RIP. It was nice knowing ya +----------------------------------------
         "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum