Re: Wanted : Zplot, the freeware version

From: Roger Bagula (tftn_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:08:48 GMT

No, it is just a moral argument as you point out,
but as you can see not one here
much cares, do they?
The independent software developer is in a place between a rock and a
hard place...
Give it away to get a reputation or go unknown.
Taking it off the market is even harder, isn't it?
The old versions haunt the net.
And they do have to feed their children.
Trying to get people to act resposibly is very hard.
You seem like a responsible individual, but you
use your knowledge to hurt another who is just like you?
Hurt, not help.
You got that ?
Hurt.
Erik Max Francis wrote:

>Roger Bagula wrote:
>
>
>
>>Dr J-P Louvet,
>>The old days are gone.
>>If you send this fellow
>>the software, you can be sued.
>>The programmer has a valid US copyright.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not a lawyer, but it seems very unlikely here that anything untoward
>is going on, nor that anyone can be sued. I haven't seen the license
>for the "freeware" version of the software (but then, neither have you),
>but I can only presume that since they're calling it "freeware" the
>license grants the right for redistribution (probably with caveats, such
>as for non-commercial purposes).
>
>Sure, there's a newer version of the software under a commercial license
>available, but software authors can't retroactively completely change
>the licenses of software after they're released. A software copyright
>holder can change the license all you want in future versions, but if
>people are using the old version validly under its license, there's
>nothing he can do about that. (He can take steps in an attempt to make
>the software hard to find, but that's a practical issue, not a legal
>one; those who find it are still allowed to use the software should the
>license grant that ability.)
>
>It's _possible_ that the freeware version license prohibits
>redistribution in a way that is relevant here, but it's pretty unlikely
>if people were calling it "freeware" in good faith. In another post you
>make an appeal that the parties involved should pay the author because
>of his expended effort, but that's not a legal argument.
>
>
> 

-- 
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel: 619-5610814 :
URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
URL :  http://victorian.fortunecity.com/carmelita/435/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Compare Linux and Freebsd Redux
    ... GPL and Linux are two completely separate things. ... The BSD license truly is free. ... the free or redistribution encumbered licenses ... the source code of your own, ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: Question about freeBSD package.
    ... I am writting you to ask what are the license terms about bjorb package, ... Is it under BSD license?...is it possible the redistribution for commercial ... Copyright 1997-1999 Hitachi Microsoftware Systems, ... modification for commerical purpose is not permitted. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • RE: BSD License "Innocence" Clause Proposal
    ... BSD License "Innocence" Clause Proposal ... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, ... MI/X X-server for Windows ... People still cite bonnie as a disk tester - but ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's ... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, ... GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the Free ... I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. ... Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author offered it under. ... The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim: ... Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)