Buchan Milne wrote: > I may have taken "(anything non-commercial)" in your paragraph to apply > to redistribution...
Yes, it's my fault for not being clear enough. > At present the OSI requirements are probably the best test for Mandrake, > since there isn't a comprehensive policy (as Debian has). It would be a good idea to mention this in the contribution instructions. In fact, it would give Mandrake a comprehensive policy in one line: "Unless otherwise specified, Mandrake distributes only software that unambiguously conforms to the OSD, is OSI-certified, and/or uses one of the following licenses: ...." Or, more simply, "Mandrake distributes open source software, as defined by the OSI." If that, or something like it, is the (de facto) Mandrake policy, then that answers all of my questions. I could clarify that I was talking about "non-modifiable" meaning "patches must be kept separate" (see OSD #4) vs. "non-modifiable" meaning "patches are not allowed," etc., but that's all irrelevant. As for shareware: > > Shareware means software that you have to pay to use. > > Not necessarily. Shareware typically means that under certain conditions > (non-commercial use, trial period) you may ue the software without > paying for it, but under other conditions (commecial use, extended use > etc) you may either not use it, or must pay. As a former member of the Association of Shareware Professionals, I always used their definition: "Shareware is not a type of software, or a distribution method, but a marketing method. A shareware program is a functioning evaluation version of a program which you can try out to make sure that it meets your needs before buying it...." In other words, shareware is commercial, non-free (neither free speech nor free beer) software. Just like Windows or Office or Civilization. The only difference is that you can evaluate it without paying for it; you still have to pay if you decide to keep and use it. That's what makes it shareware. Shareware, like any other commercial software, may have any exemptions the developer wants--free for non-commercial use, free for academic use, etc.--but these are entirely separate from whether or not it's shareware. IIRC, SGI used to let universities copy Irix for free (of course you had to buy/borrow/whatever Indy's to run it on...), but that didn't mean it wasn't a commercial product. > Most "freeware" allows redistribution of binaries commercially, which is why > I would consider this shareware as opposed to freeware. >From the same file: "Like freeware, shareware usually allows non-commercial distribution: You can download shareware software from BBS's or the Internet, or copy it from a friend or a users' groups. Like freeware, shareware also often allows commercial distribution: You may find shareware software on a CD you buy, or included with a book or magazine. However, buying that CD, book, or magazine does not mean that you have bought the software...." In other words, both shareware and freeware often allow unrestricted commercial distribution, but they may restrict commercial distribution, or not allow it at all. The only difference is that freeware is free to use, shareware is not. And, by the way, from Frodo's contact page: "Frodo is _not_ a shareware program, but I won't reject any gifts."
