Charging the net...

[Steve Peltz]

In article <6579:May706:09:5591 at kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd at kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991May7.000512.1961 at eci386.uucp> woods at eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>> Shareware, by definition, depends upon a licence.
>
>Not necessarily.

[fine example of copyright limitations omitted]

>That's not a license. It's just a copyright limitation, and it's legally
>sound. I'd still say that Fubar 6.66 is shareware.

I agree that what you wrote is completely valid. I'd argue that it doesn't
match the goals of Shareware at all. I, Joe User, have no incentive whatsoever
to pass your program on to anyone else; not only that, but Jack User, who
wants a copy, won't get an "evaluation" copy to try out without paying for it.

The whole idea of shareware is to distribute the program as far and wide as
possible, and people who want to keep it pay for it. If they don't want to
keep it, they are still encouraged to give plenty of copies to friends.

Although a wonderful and grand idea, I don't think it can be made legally
enforceable, at least using the current copyright laws. Since you own a
legal copy of the program, you have no legal obligation to destroy it just
because a time limit ran out, and it is not in the author's best interest
to keep you from making a copy of the program for someone else (else that
other person never gets a chance to see the program, and maybe pay for it).
There is no way, under the copyright laws, to say "you may not RECEIVE a
copy of this program", it can only prevent you from MAKING a copy. Once you've
legally made a copy (other than the archival type copy that doesn't require
permission from the author), you can pass that copy to anyone you want.