Hi David, Sure! Paul was making the comparison between distributing software for free, and leaving your front door open, inviting people to come in and take your stuff. The comparison doesn't really work because if I create a piece of software, I can burn it on to CDs any number of times for a few pence each, or even more cheaply, put it on a web server. The people I give the software to can pass it on further, until between us we've created millions of copies at negligible cost. Unfortunately, what's true for software binaries is not true for the atoms in physical property. I can't take my guitar and make thousands or millions of perfect copies of it using my computer. In fact, each copy I make could cost at least as much or more than the first one, assuming I actually had the skills required to copy a guitar. So while I'm happy to distribute free software, I wouldn't let just anyone borrow my guitar - and there's nothing illogical about that. A problem is created when proprietary software companies try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to be able to use CD-ROM and internet technologies to mass-produce software at a very high profit margin. On the other hand, they pretend to be upset when other people use exactly the same technologies to copy the software without paying for it. We could draw an analogy with music itself, and say that the real problem is how to make sure that creativity in the development of software is rewarded. Cheers! Daniel