Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

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.
 
All we can conclude here is that Frank and I disagree, and that you
agree with Frank.  I gave a reference supporting my view, while so
far neither you nor Frank have given any reference supporting your
view.  Given those circumstances, don't you think it's a little bit
premature to conclude that I am wrong?
 
It may even be that both of us are right, i.e. that the word
"freeware" is used differently in different communities.  Which of
course is unfortunate and will lead to misunderstandings - for
instance in this case: suppose you released a piece of software as
PD, and then told me "No, it's not freeware" but not much else, then
I would conclude you'd expect payment from anyone wanting to use that
software you intended to release as PD.
 
 
> Thanks for the spelling check - I was (and still am) quite ill,
> and concentration isn't my strong suit at the moment.
>
> Roy
 
I hope you'll get better soon.
 
 
> Frank Townsend wrote:
> 
>> http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/f/freeware.html
>>
>> http://members.tripod.com/ifaa/what.htm
>>
>> Copyrighted freeware is a redundancy.
>>
>> Freeware refers to copyrighted works, therefore "some freeware is PD" makes
>> no sense.  The two sets do not intersect.
>>
>> Public domain is free, but not freeware as defined.  Freeware may have
>> restrictions as to distribution (or others) as the copyright holder sees
>> fit.  Public domain in general has no restrictions of any kind.
>>
>> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
>> news:8qdmfa$ks2$1@merope.saaf.se...
>>> In article <39CA149A.C521F5A6@inetnebr.com>,
>>> Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Freeware and shareware are not public domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shareware is not PD of course.  But you cannot generally claim
>>>>> "Freeware is not public domain", because some freeware is PD.
>>>>
>>>> PD means there isn't a copyright.
>>>
>>>> "Freeware" is a term used to refer to copyrighted software,
>>>
>>> If so, why is the term "copyrighted freeware" used?  If you were
>>> right, it would serve no purpose.
>>>
>>> Freeware is software which is free to use, no matter whether it's
>>> copyrighted or not.  The "Hacker's Dictionary" by Eric Raymond as
>>> well as the Jargon File says:
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> freeware n.  Free software, often written by enthusiasts and
>>> distributed by users' groups, or via email, local nulletin boards,
>>> USENET, or other electronic media.
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> So I'm sorry, but you were wrong above.
>>>
>>>
>>>> when the copyright holder has given permission to unlimited copying,
>>>> but still wishes to protect their rights to the algorithyms.
>>>
>>> The correct spelling is "algorithms"......
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, your statement that "some freeware is PD" is technically false,
>>>
>>> No -- it's your concept of the word "freeware" that's in error.
>>> The only requirement for something being "freeware" is that it's
>>> free to use legally -- there's no requirement for a copyright being
>>> attached to it.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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