On 12/5/07, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007 8:13 PM, Legatus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/5/07, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > > 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. > > I think that implies that: > > (1) I can incorporate a public domain codebase into my own code, > regardless of my intent (FOSS, commercial, etc.) with no required > preconditions (ex: get permission) or postconditions (ex: include a > notice somewhere) > > (2) If I want to do the same with freeware, I must obtain permission > and terms from the author. > > If I'm wrong or missing anything feel free to speak up. > > That is exactly my understanding. I have also heard the term freeware used as a generic term to apply to any software you don't have to pay for. That would mean that FOSS, Shareware, and PD would all be Freeware. That is the intent of the term at the site www.sunfreeware.com, which hosts mostly GNU and BSD licensed software.
-- JD Runyan -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
