Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

["Arkain" <rwking@usa.nospam.net>]

As I stated in an earlier post, my statements are based on personal
observation. The majority of the free non-public domain software that I have
encountered has had some form of copyright on it with only a few exceptions.
Even the freeware on linux is usually covered by the GPL or some other
public license, and I dare say that linux freeware comprises the vast
majority of the freeware on the market.

Arkain

"Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net> wrote in message
39d51012_2@news3.prserv.net">news:39d51012_2@news3.prserv.net...
> I have to go along with Paul and ask you what your source is for your
> statement that Freeware is *usually* copyrighted. I'd bet big bucks that
> darned little Freeware has actually been copyrighted. There's not really a
> big point to actually doing it since there is virtually no *enforceable*
> distinction between Freeware and public domain. Freeware is nothing more
> than an appeal to the gentlefolk among us to abide by the author's wishes.
>
> Tom Zuchowski
>
> "Roy and/or Janet Miller" <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> 39D4E22F.5535BD7F@inetnebr.com">news:39D4E22F.5535BD7F@inetnebr.com...
> > Arkain wrote:
> >
> > > Frank's only mistake was concluding that "freeware" is always
> necessarily
> > > copyrighted.
> >
> > I don't think Frank was mistaken. The term "freeware" *usually* is used
to
> > distinguish software that is copyrighted from other copyrighted
software:
> > shareware or commercial. If software isn't copyrighted, then it is
public
> > domain, a different category.
> >
> > Roy
> >
> > > The conflicting examples that you and he pulled is proof that
> > > this is not the case. While freeware is almost always copyrighted, the
> > > matter of copyright has little to do with the freeware term.
> > >
> > > Arkain
>
>
>