Re: Law- Asimov and A2-Delphi

[pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

tward@XXXXenteract.com writes:

>Let's boil this down to the facts:

>Shareware and freeware are, by definition, freely distributable. There

By your definition. Not by mine.

>have always been some exceptions such as not charging more than the cost
>of a disk (for mail distribution) or basic connect charges (for online
>distribution.) There are also a few pieces of software that are limited
>in where they can be distributed. But these exceptions are always stated
>in the software's documentation. If a piece of shareware or freeware
>does not have one of these exceptions listed in its documentation, then
>it can be freely distributed =anywhere=.

No it can't. I challenge you to give me a legal definition of shareware.
Shareware means whatever you want it to mean. 

>You cannot change the status of a previously available shareware or
>freeware product. You cannot "revoke" the shareware or freeware status. 

Yes you can, on both counts. What makes you think you've got the right to
dictate that I can't demand a particular site to remove my program from 
their listing. This has happend many times in the past, which demonstrates
your argument is worthless. Not only can it be done, it *has* been done.

>Even if you make a commercial version of your old shareware software,
>the old shareware version remains freely distributable. You can,
>however, create a new version of your software and introduce
>restrictions on the new version. But these restrictions must be spelled
>out in the software's documentation.

More or less correct, except about the "freely distributable" part. Again,
there is no law that I know of which specifically says "if I declare something
as shareware, I give up all rights to it's distribution". That's bull.

>Commercial software, by definition, is =not= freely distributable. You
>must assume that you cannot distribute such software unless you get
>permission. This protection does not implicitly expire just because the
>software is old.

Yes it does, actually, but that is admittedly after about 50-60 years, isn't
it? ;-). Actually, there is a very common practice of distributing full
applications which contain an unlock key to enable full functionality. 
So with commercial software as well, there is *NO* definition, only common
practice.

>The asimov ftp site contains =some= copyrighted commercial software
>without the permission of the copyright holders. This is in violation of

What a load of bull. As has been mentioned previously, Asimov is completely
open to everybody (unlike some other services whose name I won't mention ;-)),
and maintain an open policy of *always* deleting a piece of software at the
request of the author.

No matter how you feel about it, to be holding software without the
permission of the author requires first that the author know about it.
Otherwise, how can you tell whether they're permitting it or not. ;-)


>the copyright law. Just because nobody complains doesn't mean a law
>isn't being broken.

Really? The fact that the site is open after several years, despite the
slanderous attacks of people like Nutball, who have surely slandered the
site to the law enforcement agencies so many times they're sick of it ;-)
seems to be a good indication that they see no problem with it.

No matter how much you preach "the law is the law", poeple who have the
vaguest stirings of intelligence will understand that the law is a dynamic
entity, and can never be taken in black and white. 

[I remember hearing of a US case where a beaten wife ran over her husband 
deliberately, leaving him paralysed from the waste down for life. She admitted
it. But the courts decided she had due provocation and didn't convict her. Now
tell me that's following the letter of the law!]


>The online services Genie and Delphi contain =no= copyrighted commercial
>software unless they have express permission to do so. No old commercial
>games, no old commercial word processors. Nothing unless the copyright
>holder gave permission.

But as mentioned, just because something is shareware doesn't mean that
the author wanted it distributed anywhere. To make sure, you'd have to
check with the author. Since Delphi 1) doesn't, and 2) maintains it's
archive privately, means that authors can't check whether there shareware is
being illegally offered on Delphi. 

That makes Delphi worse that Asimov, however you look at it. The difference
is that Delphi tends to attract those with low moral standard and a talent
for self justification... right Nothin? ;-)

>Rubywand keeps saying that asimov will remove any title if the copyright
>holder complains. I am saying that the online services follow the law by
>not even carrying these titles unless they have permission to do so.
>The fact that asimov is free and the online services are paid makes no
>difference.

Except that shareware authors can't make sure their shareware isn't on the
site if they don't want it to be. Delphi is a closed-in, secret, if you
will, archive. 

>Rubywand, I want you to answer a simple question. Yes or no. Is asimov
>breaking any laws? Genie and Delphi are not.

Bwhah hah hah. ROTFLOL. That's what I used to love about Nothin... his
immense talent for self justification. And let's face it... you are trying to
justify Delphi's actions. Rubywand had a good point...

Many shareware authors (myself included) routinely make a statement that
the shareware is to be freely distributed without charge, and that the only
charge permitted is the distribution cost. Now, are you going to try and
justify registering with Delphi is just a "distribution cost?" Bull.

Requiring no profit from an author's shareware to someone else is *very*
common in the license agreement, and (since you keep harping on about the
"definition" of shareware) I would even go so far to say is part of the
"definition" of shareware. That Delphi restricts the archive to only paying
customers means that the license agreements of all those shareware authors
is being violated.


So, in answer to your question. Yes, Asimov is breaking the letter of law.
And no, Delphi is *certainly* breaking the law as well.

>-- 
>/---------------------------------------------------------------\
>|            Tony Ward             |  NO UNSOLICITED EMAIL ADS  |
>|    (Remove the XXXX to reply)    |    Just say NO to SPAM!    |
>|  http://www.enteract.com/~tward  | http://spam.abuse.net/spam |

>Would George have been President if his name was Harry?

--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.