Jordan Brown wrote: >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. > > Thanks for the explanation.
I'll take the definition that we come up with here to legal just to make sure we have a correct definition. thanks, Lynne _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
