On Monday 31 December 2007 15:36:59 Dan Kegel wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > According to Wikipedia: "The *only* criterion for being > > classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for > > use for an unlimited time at no cost" [1]. > > [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware > > That page also mentions that some people disagree with that, > and say that software which cannot be shared with others > is not freeware. > > The difference is interesting to me because nonredistributable > freeware can be pulled from the internet at any time > by its author, whereas redistributable freeware will always > be available via mirrors. Thus the Wine community can > count on redistributable freeware, but not in general on > nonredistributable. > > This matters sometimes, e.g. when considering which apps to > put in our "must run in 1.0" test suite. >
Could we use the 'downloadable apps' page for that? It shows the apps for which there are currently listed free downloads, optionally filtered by licence. > So it might be good to split freeware into two: > Free to use, but not to share > Free to use and to share > - Dan
