On 2024-05-26 20:57, Tatsuki Makino wrote:
Hello.
What I say may turn out to be bullshit :)
In short, it doesn't matter what the license is, it's how it controls
Can the FreeBSD installer include built packages?
Can packages be included on FreeBSD installer disks sold on the FreeBSD Mall
(
https://www.freebsdmall.com/ ) ?
When the distfile fails to download, can it be downloaded from
MASTER_SITE_BACKUP?
If there are no matching licenses, I think we can concoct new licenses and
control them.
I don't know if it's just a good example, but I think
print/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2 is applicable to the example where the
license
clause is included in the distribution file, and audio/libamrnb is
applicable to
the example where the license clause is not included in the distribution
file.
It's a surprisingly difficult part that needs to be done accurately, so if
I'm
saying something wrong, please point it out right away :)
Regards.
I think you site 2 excellent examples. But in the end, isn't the onus upon
the
creator(s) of the software/source to clearly site TOU -- terms of use?
IOW with reasonable diligence, which might be a cursory look through the
source,
in an effort to find those terms. 1) Should that search return a clear
answer; fine,
problem solved. 2) Should that search turn up multiple options, with no clear
answer/
winner. Choose any, or a text description summarizing the overall (perceived)
intent.
3) Should that search return no results. Choose TOU/LICENSE UNKNOWN.
Point being; a producer of an app/software should/can not require an
end-user/distributor
to be well-versed in the prevailing law(s) of their place of citizenship. Nor
to be an
attorney/barrister, in order to use their software. Unless, of course, it is
only
intended for such use.
So the answer is clearly best/reasonable effort on the individual in
possession of
said software/source. Best, or Reasonable is in the interpretation of the
individual
in possession of said software/source.
--Chris
