IE 4 and copyright (a clarification)

[Robert J Tiess]

On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:59:44 -0700 "Peter Murray" <pem at po.cwru.edu>
writes:
>MSIE is not "freeware" (a term which typically implies that the author
>relinquishes all rights to the software)

Just for everyone's information, freeware is **not** software an author
has relinquished all rights to--the category for that is _Public_Domain_.
Freeware is simply software made freely available for downloads,
and authors of it (such as myself) usually promote free distribution
of such programs and/or files.  On the other hand, public domain
files/programs are generally released by authors to the public with the
understanding these works are not entitled to any intellectual property
protection.  Years ago I released a public domain, "concept" computer
language (compilation + source) called VURTUAL.  I also create
shareware, which is software freely distributed that you can download
and "evaluate" for a specified period.  If you wish to continue using
such software you have to purchase it (aka Registration).
Registration may entitle you to future upgrades or other benefits and
differs on a program-by-program basis.

There are also such things as "postcardware," donation-ware,
nag-ware, cripple-ware, all of which involve a variety of licensing
agreements, program configurations, or licensing procedures.  There
are a variety of specialized intellectual property agreements (e.g.
Copyleft/GNU license) in which download and distribution rights may
vary.  Project Gutenberg, for example, attaches a header of information
and distribution information to all public domain texts digitized under
that project.  And, as is true of many licensing agreements, there
may be exceptions or exclusions, such as a waiving of registration
fees for educational institutions or non-profit organizations.  The
copyright situation gets even more interesting in the case of some
literary e-zines, such as my own, which are distributed freely either
in newsgroups or e-mail and yet righfully assert copyright protection.
And then there's e-mail and the seemingly implicit liberty of
reproducing a person's entire post.  Here too I think can be territory
worthy of concern, particularly in the case of lengthy personal responses
or 3rd party documents shared posted via e-mail.  I belong to a variety
of
lists and extensive quotations of posts and printed or online works
can approache the copyright issue line too easily crossed, either in
honest mistake or something else.

Getting back to the software side of it all, in the end, it's the user
agreeing (or not) to the author or company's outline of expectations
or requests, public domain being the exception.  More importantly, if
you do not agree with the author (or company's) distribution, your
license to use the software is null and void and you are required to
cease from using the software.  That, in my opinion, would include
fully deleting all associated files installed on your computer in order
to comply completely with the licensing agreement's termination.
I think the safest and most sensible approach is to assume anything
you encounter on the Internet is protected under intellectual
property statues, stateside or international, unless something is
explicitly stipulated as being otherwise.

Having just successfully completed a full "software installed" review
at my library, the issue of copyright compliance is fresh in my mind,
and although I suspect most list-members know these things, I just
wanted to take this opportunity to distinguish freeware from public
domain.  As a writer, programmer, webmaster and a publisher, I
consider these distinctions vital to my professions and fellow
authors out there.


Truly yours,
Robert J. Tiess