On 12/5/07, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:57 PM, Legatus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/5/07, SJS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I've found that a lot of people who aren't terribly interested in the > > > open-source community treat "public domain", "freeware", "shareware", > > > and "open source" as synonyms. > > > > > > Some of them are astonished at the idea that they aren't synonyms, and > > > a bit disbelieving. > > > > > > > I run into this everyday. There are numerous government departmental > manuals > > that discourage the use of most of the FOSS software products, because > they > > don't differentiate between these. I find it funny, especially since a > > significant number of public domain software products have started in > > government. Strangely the admin types get it, and the developers don't. > The > > very people who would lose their mind if their code were misappropriated > by > > someone else, don't get the difference between FOSS, PD, freeware, and > > shareware. They figure it is free, so they can do whatever they want > with > > it. > > -- > > JD Runyan > > I have this mental grouping: > * FOSS > * PD, freeware > * shareware > > Is there a difference between a codebase that is "public domain" vs. a > codebase that is "freeware"? >
The copyright holder relinquishes their copyright to with public domain software. They may just release the binary files or the source to the public domain. Freeware is given away, but the copyright holder does not relinquish their rights to the copyright. -- JD Runyan -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
