Re: The Status of CheckWorks

[nojunkhattonr@aug.com (Rick)]

Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> wrote:

> joko@crl2.crl.com (Joe Kohn) wrote:
> 
> >Just so that there is no further confusion about CheckWorks and/or the
> >status of the program, here is an offical statement from Dan Crutcher, the
> >author of the CheckWorks package and the copyright holder:
> 
> Good job, Joe.  It might also be a good idea to get Dan to write
> another official statement - to the effect that CheckWorks should
> not be distributed EVER whatever its commercial status without
> express promission from him.
> 
> THAT ought to prevent any symmantic wiggling if it ever shows
> up on Asimov.  ;-)
> 
> Seriously, some of the wiggling has gone to rediculous lengths
> to justify stuff showing up on Asimov, so something like such
> an official "bulletproof" statement is not a bad idea.

Actually, there is a lot of wiggle room in the statement provided by Dan
Crutcher through Joe Kohn. 

"... If someone has one of the older shareware/fairware versions, they
are, of course, free to continue to use it, but updates must be obtained
through Shareware Solutions. I would prefer that all versions of
CheckWorks be removed from any online file catalogs or ftp sites that
might still have..."

vs.

"...In simplest terms: I do not authorize the use or dissemination of
any versions of CheckWorks. I retain the copyright to the program and I
have granted Joe Kohn's Shareware Solutions exclusive license to sell
and distribute the program."

... All in the same message.

So, was the version of Checkworks that casued all this commotion the
commercial version or a non-commercial version? If it was a "fairware"
version, what was the problem?

-- 
Remove nojunk from my email address to reply by email.