Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <39d16a63.162973841@24.9.0.17>,
Jeff Blakeney <CUTblakeney@home.com> wrote:
 
>On 23 Sep 2000 15:59:47 +0200, pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <39CC235D.B9DBC394@inetnebr.com>,
>>Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you Frank. So Paul, I wasn't wrong, but you were.
>> 
>>Apparently you assign papal infallibity to Frank.  Note that he
>>gives no reference whatsoever for his definition of "freeware",
>>he merey expresses his opinion.
>
>Perhaps you missed the URLs that Frank put at the beginning of his
>post.
 
Yes, I missed them -- thanks for pointing them out to me
 
>The first one was:
>
>     http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/f/freeware.html
>
>Which stated:
>
>     "Copyrighted software given away for free by the author.
>      Although it is available for free, the author retains the
>      copyright, which means that you cannot do anything with it
>      that is not expressly allowed by the author. Usually, the
>      author allows people to use the software, but not sell it."
 
I tried a few other words in that encyclopedia.  For instance the
newly added "Fresnel zones", where they give a description which
is reasonably correct, except the statement that it applies only
to radio waves.  It doesn't -- it applies to light as well, which
is hardly surprising since light too is EM radiation.  However if
the webopedia is to be trusted, light doesn't have fresnel zones....
 
 
>The second URL was from the International Freeware Authors Association
>web site at:
>
>     http://members.tripod.com/ifaa/what.htm
 
I failed to get any response from that site....
 
>Their definition of Freeware is:
>
>     "Software that can be used by anyone on their personal or
>      business computer that does not require any currency to
>      register. Freeware does not contain constant reminders to
>      upgrade to a "PRO" version, nor is it "limited" in
>      functions or time that a user may use it. 
 
This agrees with my definition of "freeware" ....
 
>      In simpler terms, once a user gets his or her hands on it
>      they are free to use and abuse the program for as long as
>      they want, the only restriction on them, should be that
>      they do not reverse engineer it, or try to pass it off as
>      their own work."
 
...but this does not: freeware which also is public domain can be
both reverse engineered and you could legally try to pass it off as
your own work.  BTW within the EU the request "do not reverse
engineer it" is unenforceable, since reverse engineering is legal in
all circumstances here.  And that makes sense: anything you buy can
legally be picked apart, so why whould computer software be any
exception?
 
> By the way, what differentiates software that you classify as public
> domain freeware from software that is classified as public domain?
 
Nothing!  The "freeware" in the phrase "public domain freeware" is
nothing but syntactic sugar, maybe intended for those who may be
unaware that public domain software is free of charge.  I personally
*never* use the phrase "public domain freeware", since being "public
domain" implies also being "freeware" (the reverse implication is of
course not valid: being "freeware" does not imply being "public
domain").
 
And then I might as well ask you: what differentiates software that
you classify as "copyrighted freeware" from software that you
classify as "freeware"?
 
Finally: since you were the one who introduced the phrase "public
domain freeware", what does that phrase mean to you?  An oxymoron?
 
> Something that is public domain is not owned by anyone so it is always
> freely distributable and people are free to do anything they want with
> it so why bother tacking on the word freeware to the end of the
> classification?
 
Indeed very true -- I never do that.  You were the one who did it, so
why did you do it?
 
A particular piece of software can belong to more than one class of
software.
 
Just like e.g. one location can belong to more than one class of
location description.  I live in Stockholm, Sweden, Europe, and the
Earth, but if asked from where I come, I *never* respond "Stockholm
Sweden Europe the Earth", because coming from "Stockholm" implies
also coming from "Sweden", "Europe", and "the Earth", and people
usually know that.  Only if the person I'm responding to doesn't know
where "Stockholm" is will I add the additional location qualifier
"Sweden".  So far I've never encountered anyone who doesn't know that
"Sweden" resides in "Europe" and that "Europe" resides on "the Earth".
 
It's the same with software: "public domain" is a subset of
"freeware", namely those freeware programs where the author doens't
merely refrain from asking for payment, but also have dropped all
requirements of copyright.  Only to someone who doesn't know that
public domain is free of charge will it make any sense to add
the qualifier "freeware" -- to others it should be implicit.
 
 
> It is completely redundant.
 
Yes!  Just like "Europe" is redundant if you've already given the location
as "Sweden".
 
> As it is redundant, and in my mind quite ridiculous, to use the term
> public domain freeware, that only leaves your term of copyrighted freeware,
> which is the only kind I've ever heard of,
 
Then read the Jargon file, and you'll hear about something else....
 
> the word copyrighted is then redundant as well because there is no such
> thing as public domain freeware so that classification can be shortened
> to freeware.
 
In your way of classyfying things it is of course so.
 
But if you define "freeware" the way I do, it includes all software
which can be used free of charge.  Some of it is public domain, but
to call it "public domain freeware" is indeed redundant, as you've
correctly pointed out, since there is no such thing as "commercial
public domain sofware" or "copyrighted public domain software": even
you have to admit this is a contradiction.  However some freeware is
not public domain, so what should we call it?  "Copyrighted freeware"
is a perfectly acceptable term: it informs you that the software is
free to use but that it's not public domain.  To call it just
"copyrighted" is misleading, since there is a lot of copyrighted
software which isn't freeware.
 
 
> Next you'll be trying to convince people that there is such a thing as
> public domain shareware.  :-)
 
I don't think so... :-)  Shareware authors want payment, which directly
contradicts the idea of public domain.   Freeware authors don't want
payment, which agrees well with PD authors not wanting payment....
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Nevertheless I've learnt one thing from this discussion which I
didn't know before: there are people who classify "freeware" as
equivalent to "copyrighted freeware", explicitly excluding public
domain software.  So whenever I hear someone say e.g. "That software
is not freeware", I'll have to watch out: does he mean that you must
pay to use the software?  Or does he mean that the software is public
domain?  A question will probably be needed to clarify that situation.
 
Likewise I hope you have learnt one thing too: there are people who
use "freeware" to refer to any software which can be legally used
free of charge, including public domain software.  If you want these
people to understand you are not referring to public domain software,
you should use the phrase "copyrighted freeware" and not just
"freeware".  To you it may be redundant, but redundance has one
advantage: it can preserv information even if parts of the message
gets distorted, e.g. by the speaker attaching a somewhat different
semantics to a phrase than the listener.  Redundancy is used in many
other circumstances too: why e.g. add a CRC to the end of packets in
some data communication protocol?  The CRC can be comupted form the
data anyway, so it's redundant - right?  :-)))
 
 
In the future I'll continue to use the word "freeware" to include
public domain software, just like I'll use the work "hacker" to
refer to a computer enthusiast rather than a computer criminal.
But in both cases I'll be aware that others may attach a different
meaning to these words than I do.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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