Lynne Thompson wrote: > Are the below definitions OK? No.
> o Non-redistributable package > > A software package that is licensed. The package cannot be > distributed except under the terms of the license. > > o Redistributable package > > A software package that is freely available for download and > can be redistributed without restrictions. No software license > is associated with the package. Whether or not a software license is associated with the package is almost orthogonal to whether it is freely distributable. Virtually all software packages have licenses associated with them, but many of those licenses explicitly give permission to redistribute the package. <nit> I can think of two cases where a package can not have a license: (1) if it has been placed into the public domain, or has entered the public domain through its copyright expiring. In either case, explicitly noting that fact, in lieu of a license, seems desirable. (2) if it has no explicit license, then it is simply copyrighted, and default copyright restrictions apply. I believe that default copyright restrictions would not allow redistribution. (Note that for most recent purposes no explicit copyright notice is required; unless otherwise specified everything is automatically copyrighted.) Hmm. I guess that means that if it doesn't have an explicit statement about its license status, it's best to assume that it's not redistributable. </nit> I suggest that this may be more properly a discussion for the legal department, rather than for engineering. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
