FYI to ACF participants

[Susan Bugher]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Thip]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the Pricelessware
web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

I think your response was a very good one. However, if the author really
has a problem with an older freeware version being made available and
protests again, I would remove it. The *only* reason I suggest that is
because a.c.f. relies heavily on the goodwill of software authors. Because
of that, I think a.c.f. should maintain a reputation for absolute integrity
and demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with authors.

 

[Tom McDonald]

I think your response was a very good one. However, if the author
really has a problem with an older freeware version being made
available and protests again, I would remove it. The *only* reason I
suggest that is because a.c.f. relies heavily on the goodwill of
software authors. Because of that, I think a.c.f. should maintain a
reputation for absolute integrity and demonstrate a willingness to
cooperate with authors.

You might add a note that the author "strenuously objects", while
maintaining the download link, and leave the decision to the gentle
reader. As for a willingness to cooperate with authors who distribute
freeware with no restrictions, and then change their minds, and seek to
block that distribution, which of these authorial moods are more
deserving of our cooperation? Absolute integrity cuts both ways.

 

[Al Klein]

Any questions or comments?

Speaking as an author:

Software released as freeware *IS* freeware. The author can come out
with a new version and make it $ware, but the EULA that governs the
older, freeware version specifically ALLOWS you to post it on PW
and/or on the CDs. (You wouldn't have posted it if it didn't, would
you have?)

Being nice is one thing, Susan, but even though I've never seen you, I
don't believe I could mistake you for a door mat.

 

[Roger Johansson]

I think your response was a very good one. However, if the author really
has a problem with an older freeware version being made available and
protests again, I would remove it. The *only* reason I suggest that is
because a.c.f. relies heavily on the goodwill of software authors.

No, most freeware authors have never heard of acf.

There is no reason to remove links to free software.

If some author declares a certain version or versions as freeware and
freely distributable that software is free forever.

Thousands of people may be using that software and may even have built
a community around that software. The author has no right to suddenly
demand that people stop using the freeware version.

Freeware is not produced because we in acf bend over backwards for
freeware authors. Freeware is produced for many reasons, and hardly any
of the programs have anything to do with this newsgroup.

 

[Matt]

I think your response was a very good one. However, if the
author really has a problem with an older freeware version
being made available and protests again, I would remove it.
The *only* reason I suggest that is because a.c.f. relies
heavily on the goodwill of software authors. Because of that,
I think a.c.f. should maintain a reputation for absolute
integrity and demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with
authors.

Agreed! In fact I would go as far as to thank the author for
sharing the freeware with the community in the past.

 

[The Six Million Dollar Man]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan

Hello Susan

First I would like to say that your reply to the Author is an excellent
first response to such a request.

If the Author persists in his/her request then the Program's EULA should
be consulted. If the license permits us to distribute the program then
it should remain on the PWH site until the Author can present a
compelling reason why it should be removed.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your
listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a
program are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

If it is an expressed wish from an author to no longer (contrary to
earlier expressed wishes) regard his/her release(s) of some version(s)
of his/her software as freeware, then yes, don't mark it or list it or
make it available for download as freeware.

 

[badgolferman]

Hello Susan

First I would like to say that your reply to the Author is an
excellent first response to such a request.

If the Author persists in his/her request then the Program's EULA
should be consulted. If the license permits us to distribute the
program then it should remain on the PWH site until the Author can
present a compelling reason why it should be removed.

What if the EULA does not specifically mention distribution but only
grants free usage once you have the program installed? In other words,
would the author be within his right to request the link be removed to
prevent distribution?

 

[Ron May]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan

Excellent response just the way it is.

If an author can show in the EULA associated with the "last free
version" link that there is some clause that limits redistribution in
some way, or grants the author the option to modify the EULA at her or
his discretion, then the ethical thing to do would be to remove the
link from PWH. In practical terms, though, I think the author really
would need to pose that type of argument to the one HOSTING the
download, and not PWH.

If the author CAN'T show that the EULA in a particular distribution
prohibits someone else from hosting, downloading and/or using the
software as freeware, then the author's options are pretty much
limited to modifying the EULA in any NEW distribution.

 

[The Six Million Dollar Man]

What if the EULA does not specifically mention distribution but only
grants free usage once you have the program installed? In other words,
would the author be within his right to request the link be removed to
prevent distribution?

Could the "free usage" in your example include distribution, so long as
the program is installed on the distributors computer?

 

[Susan Bugher]

The Six Million Dollar Man, 2/17/2006,10:08:36 PM, wrote:

We are not distributing the app. We show a link to a site that is.

What if the EULA does not specifically mention distribution but only
grants free usage once you have the program installed? In other words,
would the author be within his right to request the link be removed to
prevent distribution?

Here's a copy of the EULA with the name of the app XXX'd out.

XXXXXXXX END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This XXXXXXXX End-User License Agreement
('EULA') is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a
single entity) and the Author of the SOFTWARE identified above.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. The Author grants you a limited, non-exclusive,
non-transferable, royalty-free license to use the executable code of the
SOFTWARE on your computer as long as the terms of this agreement are
respected.

2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of the SOFTWARE
as you wish; give exact copies of the original SOFTWARE to anyone; and
distribute the SOFTWARE in its unmodified form via electronic means
(Internet, BBS's, Shareware distribution libraries, CD-ROMs, etc.). You
may charge a distribution fee for the package, but you must not
represent in any way that you are selling the SOFTWARE itself. Your
distribution of the SOFTWARE will not entitle you to any compensation
from the Auhtor. You must distribute a copy of this EULA with any copy
of the SOFTWARE and anyone to whom you distribute the SOFTWARE is
subject to this EULA.

3. MAINTENANCE. The Author is not obligated to provide maintenance or
updates for the SOFTWARE. However, any maintenance or updates
provided by The Author shall be covered by this Agreement.

4. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, the Auhtor may
terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions
of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE.

5. COPYRIGHT. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and
international treaty provisions. You acknowledge that no title to the
intellectual property in the SOFTWARE is transferred to you. You further
acknowledge that title and full ownership rights to the SOFTWARE will
remain the exclusive property of the Auhtor and you will not acquire any
rights to the SOFTWARE except as expressly set forth in this license.
You agree that any copies of the SOFTWARE will contain the same
proprietary notices which appear on and in the SOFTWARE.

6. WARRANTIES. THE AUTHOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANT WARRANTY FOR THE
SOFTWARE. THE SOFTWARE AND ANY RELATED DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED 'AS IS'
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

------------

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[badgolferman]

2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of the
SOFTWARE as you wish; give exact copies of the original SOFTWARE to
anyone; and distribute the SOFTWARE in its unmodified form via
electronic means (Internet, BBS's, Shareware distribution libraries,
CD-ROMs, etc.).

Seems to me this statement exonerates you. I am not a lawyer nor do I
play one on TV.

 

[Ron May]

Here's a copy of the EULA with the name of the app XXX'd out.

(Edited by me for brevity - r.m.)

2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of the SOFTWARE
as you wish; give exact copies of the original SOFTWARE to anyone; and
distribute the SOFTWARE in its unmodified form via electronic means
(Internet, BBS's, Shareware distribution libraries, CD-ROMs, etc.)

I think that pretty much settles the issue. Keep the link.

 

[Matt]

2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of
the SOFTWARE as you wish; give exact copies of the original
SOFTWARE to anyone; and distribute the SOFTWARE in its
unmodified form via electronic means (Internet, BBS's,
Shareware distribution libraries, CD-ROMs, etc.). You may
charge a distribution fee for the package, but you must not
represent in any way that you are selling the SOFTWARE itself.
Your distribution of the SOFTWARE will not entitle you to any
compensation from the Auhtor. You must distribute a copy of
this EULA with any copy of the SOFTWARE and anyone to whom you
distribute the SOFTWARE is subject to this EULA.

The proof is in the puddin'. ;-)

Thanks for further info Susan.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan Bugher, 2/17/2006,11:16:36 PM, wrote:

Seems to me this statement exonerates you. I am not a lawyer nor do I
play one on TV.

Please note: I'm trying to keep my opinions to myself and give others a
chance to speak their piece. . . but. . .

AFAIK there's nothing of questionable legality on the PWH home site. IOW
- I'm not seeking exoneration. I posted the EULA as a point of information.

The question is how do we want to handle this request and similar
requests (if any) in the future. Policy decisions are *group* decisions.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Shadow]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions of
xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware. pricelesswarehome.org is an
alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site. When recent versions of a program
are Shareware our web pages show the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

Susan

How about:

"When a program becomes shareware/payware we (PHW) only list the links
to the last freeware version and information pertaining to that
specific freeware version program. We (PHW) do not host the file(s)
itself. If said freeware version(s) is no longer available anywhere on
any site that originally hosted said file(s) we will of course remove
any and all information pertaining to said software."

Shadow

 

[B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:16:36 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote:

there are many aspects necessary to be thought about. (All of the
following is of course my private opinion, entirely!)

The first aspect is a legal one: If an author limits the distribution
or retains the right to terminate the current licensing state at will,
we are bound to follow that request.

If the distribution isn't covered by some kind of license text (and
the author didn't explicitly gave up the Copyright to the program)
a sudden change of the license policy has to be respected, too.

I would keep (only!) the program name in both such cases and add a
notice like "Removed on author's request." It could help to add a
link to a page containing the text of the wish/demand expressed.

The author of the program in question made some very big mistakes
of wording inside the EULA, though:

Unlimited (in extent and time) free distribution:
| 2. DISTRIBUTION. You are hereby licensed to make copies of the SOFTWARE
| as you wish; give exact copies of the original SOFTWARE to anyone; and
| distribute the SOFTWARE in its unmodified form via electronic means

Updates always have the same license status as the original program:
| 3. MAINTENANCE. [...] any maintenance or updates provided by The Author
| shall be covered by this Agreement.

The latter is a *promise* which inflicts a self-induced interdiction
of license changes. A program covered by such a license *never* could
go from freeware to shareware or another kind payware, actually.

That brings me to a last level of consideration: Apart from legal
consequences there are also moral ones. Longtime uses of the
program should be covered by "protection of continuance". If a
user can not expect license changes, then further usage seems okay
to me.

New users, OTOH, should respect the new situation and keep their
hands off the program. The same goes for further distribution of
the free versions (if the author explicitly wants to ban that). My
reasoning behind that is (as I wrote) a moral one: Providing freeware
is an act of good will of the program author, who has invested a
good deal of time (and maybe other resources). It should be normal
to "repay" with consilient good will and respect newly expressed
wishes of the author, as long as these are reasonable.

Again: All above is completely IMHO.

BeAr

 

[Kurt]

The PWH site received an email that made the following request:

"This program is no longer a freeware. Please remove from your
listing."

I replied:

"I am aware that your site no longer offers downloads for versions
of xxxxxxxxxx that were released as Freeware.
pricelesswarehome.org is an alt.comp.freeware newsgroup web site.
When recent versions of a program are Shareware our web pages show
the last free version."

Since this is the first such request that's been sent to the
Pricelessware web site I thought I should mention it here.

Any questions or comments?

After reading the entire thread up to this time, it seems to me that
the reasonable thing to do would be to flag the PWH listing of the
program. The listing could be flagged saying that the linked site has
requested not to be regarded as freeware. Since the author has
requested this, why not grant the request and be 'good netizens'?

 

[burnr]

Here's a copy of the EULA with the name of the app XXX'd out.

Last freeware versions have always been a bit touchy for me. I do host a
few without any known issues from the authors. However, I'm understanding
that should an author ask me to discontinue offering the last freeware
version, I do so regardless of what the freeware license states. I have
even attempted to contact authors to get their permission to host last
freeware versions before actually hosting the files. Sometimes with
success, sometimes not.This is my personal opinion only and is how I deal
with the issue for FW4U.

For the PWH site, I would vote that we respect the authors request and
remove the link.