(Long) Answer to Question of .net ethics

[David F. Skoll]

Last week, I asked what the .net policy on "shareware" was.  I only got
8 replies.

Everyone condemned "shareware" - ie, no-one is willing to be "forced" to
register a program to continue using it.

Most people didn't mind "beggarware" - ie, a request for a voluntary donation.
However, they didn't think anyone would get rich on this.

Everyone agreed that the best option is "freeware" - software with no strings
attached.

Sample responses:

>From jpn at genrad.com (John Nelson)

>The copyright holder cannot restrict the USE of something which an
>end-user has obtained via a method approved by the copyright holder.
>In other words, once you have agreed to distribute your program via
>USENET, you have no right to charge anyone for it's USE.

>From mccall!tp at ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Terry Poot)

(Re registration -dfs)

>NO. This is slimy. I personally treat any such thing as though the
>terms were as mentioned in the next paragraph. If I didn't ask for it,
>and you send it to me, it's MINE. I'll respect copyright, but the copy
>I have is mine to do with as I wish, because I didn't ask for it and
>didn't agree to any terms.

>From pete at tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell)

>In my opinion it is not ethical to post commercial or pseudo-commercial
>software over the net, using the alt., comp., distributions. There is a biz.
>distribution for commercial material. If I, as a leaf node paying my own
>private phone bill to collect news from my upstream site (sorry to mix
>metaphors here) receive so-called 'shareware' in a newsgroup where it is
>customary to post only public domain, free, software, my attitude is the
>same as if I receive, unsolicited, a book from a publisher on a sale or
>return basis, with no postage prepaid (so that I have to pay the postage). I
>will still respect any copyright in the work, so I won't give copies to
>all and sundry, but, if after asking the publisher to collect the book he
>doesn't take it back, I'll feel free to use it myself.

>I draw an important distinction here in the matter of choice. If I log in to
>a BBS, see a nice piece of software there, clearly labelled as shareware,
>e.g. Procomm, and download it then I think it's reasonable for me to pay the
>licence fee asked, even though I've had to pay to download it (analogous to
>paying a bus fare to go to a shop). But if I have no choice in whether I
>download it or not, because it's embedded in a channel where I reasonably
>expect to find only free material, then I don't think it's reasonable.

>Bear in mind that it costs the net community real money to distribute
>postings. Some of it is private money, some of it is corporate money, some
>of it is government money. But, if you use the net to distribute software
>from which you hope to make money, then you're taking a free ride off other
>people without asking them first in the expectation of profitting yourself.

From: jon%vector0 at sactoh0.SAC.CA.US (A Product of Society)

>    We don't need no stinkin' summaries. :)

Thanks to all who responded.
--
David F. Skoll        | Department of Electronics | Opinions expressed here are
dfs at doe.carleton.ca   | Carleton University       | my own and not necessarily
(613) 788-5771 | 5772 | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   | those of my employer.