From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 06:54:32 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Charityware
In-Reply-To: <v03102801b083a67344ca@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199711042214.WAA04293@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> Monty writes:
> >The important thing is establishment of the custom.  Most
> >cryptoanarchists with class will pay.  The way to do this is to make
> >it clear from day one that it is not free software.  
> 
> _This_ cryptoanarchist will almost _never_ pay for that which is free.

It depends what you call free.  If someone puts a copy of eudora pro
5.67 or whatever other commercial software up on the eternity service,
is that "free"?

It is free to the extent that it is unlikely that you will be caught.
It is even less likely that you will be caught if you are a nym using
remailers mostly.

The difference with an anonymous cryptoanarchist run software house is
that you know that they probably aren't paying taxes on their sales.
So you have additional assurance that they can't touch you if you use
their software -- they'd have to blow their cover unless they just
made a donation to AP or something:-)

People copy commercial software all the time.  I suspect only some
small fraction of personal use software is ever paid for.  Companies
are less likely to do this because they are larger and more worth
going after, and because the SPA software police have caused some
companies problems already.

The shareware, beggarware, or "charityware" approach of giving it away
for free, and then demanding or begging payment is partly an
acknowledgement that there is no way to stop you redistributing it
even if they demanded payment up front.  Plus the advantage that you
get free distribution, if people like it, it'll be all over the place
in no time.  Beggarware has worked for a few people, I think, perhaps
ID software's DOOM was one example.  Yes most people didn't pay, but
the free advertising more than compensated I suspect.

We to frown on protocols which rely on "please give me money", or "and
then we call the cops".  Payment protocols should be clean.

One alternative which Intel is brewing up for us is clipper CPUs which
do things against their owners interests, like encrypted instruction
schemes... nasty stuff.  This would then be used to ensure your copy
of the software won't run on other peoples machines.  That could be
enabling technology for all sorts of snooping.

One idea which I did like was the open bidding for a product to be
developed, people interested in the feature or product pay how much it
is worth to them up front, developers bid to take the job on.  After
it's done the software is freeware.  Supporting ideas discussed before
on this topic are that first to complete gets paid, or lowest bidder
presents completion bond, and that there are independent aribitrators
checking quality.

There was someone who posted to the list that he was going to set this
up.  He even purchased the domain name if I recall.  What happened,
did anything come of it?

Adam
-- 
Now officially an EAR violation...
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`