From: jesse@uts.amdahl.com (Jesse Mundis)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,news.admin
Subject: Re: Hipocrisy is the Greatest Luxury (raise the double standard)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:57:30 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:


>Again, without a court case there's only opinion.  I personally
>doubt that a court would consider my using a shareware program 
>without paying a fee to the author as a violation.  The author 
>distributes shareware with the "hope" that some folks will pay for
>it if they like it.  Shareware isn't any diferent than if an author
>freely distributes 100s of copies of a book and includes a statement
>that if you read the book please send $x to me.  Do you think
>the author would have a case against someone that read the book
>without paying?  Not likely, the author gave away the books, the
>act of reading (as is the act of using the software) is not what
>copyright protects.  My understanding is that copyright protects
>against unauthorized copying and the shareware program was freely
>given away.  If I have a shareware program, whether I use it or
>not, I'm not in any copyright violation since the author intended
>me (and everyone else) to get the copy for free.   So my guess
>is that a court would not find a copyright violation by an individual
>that used shareware without paying the author his requested fee.

You've brought up a good point.  COPY-right does only apply to the
copying of material, not its use.  (The reading or running example)
But, with shareware there is a difference.  The copy may be free, but
the licence to *use* the shareware states the conditions of use.  Most
say "You may use this for so long, and if you use it any longer you must
pay me money."  This is very different from "that if you read the book please 
send $x to me."  It comes back to whole idea that software is almost NEVER
sold, just the licence to use it.  And those licences, even on shareware,
are still valid.

So, IMHO, *IF* Usenet postings have no copyright status, then yes, posted
shareware likewise has no copyright status... but by its nature, shareware
has NO copyrights anyway.  The authors WANT it to be copied.  The licencing
agreement is still in full force.

So, if someone wanted to quote your shareware in a magazine, there would be
no copyright to stop them.  But if the licencing agreement defined 'appropriate
uses' of the shareware, it could easily say, right after the "if you like it,
pay me" bit, "any use of this code for profit requires the authors consent."

Now, others can publish your code, antholgise it, or whatever.  Your shareware
is being "shared" far and wide, but the owner still maintains a kind of
'distribution rights' without copyright.

The above is just my opinion, and shouldn't be taken as anything close to
official doctrine, legal advise, or anything else I can get into trouble
for. :-)


-- 
    Jesse Mundis     |      Amdahl Corporation       | Freedom is just chaos
jesse@uts.amdahl.com | 1250 East Arques Ave  M/S 316 | with better lighting.
   (408) 746-4796    |   Sunnyvale,  CA 94088-3470   |    -Alan Dean Foster 

#include <Disclaimer.standard>
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property,alt.folklore.urban