Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <39D7AA33.51C0A4DF@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Sometimes your posts suggest that your grasp of English isn't as great as it
> normally is.
 
So may I humbly remind you that English is not my native language.  Should
we carry on this discussion in MY native langauge instead?  <g>
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> In article <39D77F86.634662B@inetnebr.com>,
>> Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>>>Paul Guertin wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The copyright called GPL goes 1 step further [...]
>>>>> The GPL enforces public domain status.
>>>>
>>>> These are mutually exclusive. Something cannot be under copyright
>>>> and in the public domain at the same time. As GPLed software is
>>>> under copyright, it is not in the public domain.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike the word "freeware", the terms "copyright" and "public domain"
>>>> have a precise legal meaning. Don't use them loosely.
>>>
>>>Thank you Paul. An important point.
>>>
>>>So then, the term "freeware" if it  is going to have any real meaning
>>>must be distinguished from "public domain". If by freeware, all that is
>>>meant is that it is software that doesn't cost you anything, then we need
>>>*another* term to distinguish "public domain freeware" from "copyrighted
>>>freeware."
>>
>> We already have such a term: public domain.  If a piece of freeware
>> isn't public domain, it must be copyrighted somehow.
> 
> If it's public domain, it isn't freeware.
 
If it's public domain, it's free of charge.  Some people (myself included)
define "freeware" as "software which is free of charge".
 
 
 
>> Adding "freeware" after "public domain" is a tautology, since public
>> domain software always is free to use.
> 
> Why are you complaining about my using a term that you used in an earlier post?
> The point, that you obviously missed is that only by your convoluted use
 
...which is supported by the Jargon file, so I'm not the only one using the word
"freeware" in that way.
 
> of the term do you have such a tautology, which really isn't a tautology.
 
Well, "non-freeware freeware" is indeed not a tautology, it's a self-contradiction....
 
> In case you haven't noticed Paul, you can go down to your closest book store
> and pay good money for books that are in the public domain. And anyone who wished
> could start selling public domain software. In fact, many already have.
 
In those cases it's the packaging which costs money, not the original text
itself: those book publishers certainly do NOT pay royalties to the original
author, do they?
 
I can package GPL'ed software too and sell it for money, as long as I sell it
for an amount which is reasonable compared to the costs for the packaging and
distribution.  Linux is often sold that way.
 
May copyrighted freeware programs are also often packaged and put on a
CD-ROM which is sold by e.g. Walnut Creek, or bundled with some computer
magazine.  Those CD's cost money.  So even copyrighted freeware does cost
money sometimes....
 
 
>>>But, as others have shown, that's what "freeware" was supposed
>>>to do, distinguish between public domain on one hand, and copyrighted
>>>software that isn't commercial, and isn't shareware on the other hand.
>>
>> It's weird that the term "freeware" wasn't supposed to distinguish software
>> which is free of charge from software which costs money to use legally....
> 
> Sigh. I'd always heard that Swedes really like to argue, now I can see why
> their neighbors thought so.
 
Don't you think you should examine a population larger than one person
before drawing any conclusion about an entire country and its people?
 
> Since public domain isn't copyrighted, it can be free to obtain. Since
> copyrighted software is normally shareware or commercial, it isn't free. So
> what do we call copyrighted software that is free for the asking??? Hmmm??
> Perhaps "Freeware"? Hmm?
 
If you call it "copyrighted freeware", the risk of being misunderstood is
much smaller.
 
BTW copyrighted freeware as well as public domain software "can" be free to
obtain -- but you "can" also have to pay for it (usually a small amount), to
cover the distribution costs.
 
> A term that fits a category of software that needs a label. Or perhaps you
> could care to coin a new terse term? Something other than one that sounds
> like something created in Brussels?
 
In case you wonder: I'm not fond of the EU ....
 
 
> Roy
> 
> Roy
> 
>>
>>>Roy
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch