Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:25:23PM -0700, Lynne Thompson wrote: > > >> A software package that could be freely available >> for download, but might not be redistributed or otherwise >> transfered to a third party according to the terms of the >> software license. >> >> > >It was the second "might" that was the problem, not the first. > >Try: > > A software package that might be freely available for download, but > may not be redistributed or otherwise ... > >And you can re-order it a bit: > > A software package that might be freely available for download, but > which, according to the terms of its software license, may no be > redistributed or otherwise ... > >"Might" indicates possibility. "May" indicates permission, and "may >not" indicates lack of permission. > >Sometimes "may" is used to indicate possibility. In this case by using >"might" in the first instance and "may not" in the second the intention >is clarified: there is no permission to redistribute. > >If you want to avoid this odd ambiguity of "may" you could write: > > A software package that might be freely available for download, but > which, according to the terms of the its software license, third > parties are not allowed to redistribute without explicit permission. > >Or something like that. > >Nico > > I was trying to avoid the problem with "may" indicating permission. Your rewrite helps solve that problem. I've made some minor adjustments.
o Non-redistributable package A software package that might be freely available for download, but according to the terms of the software license, third parties are not allowed to redistribute without explicit permission. thanks! lynne _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
