appdb license choices unclear
Has anybody else been confused by this? When submitting an app to the appdb, I'm often flummoxed by what to put in the license field. I'm usually looking for something that means "Closed source, free to download, but not redistributable" (like e.g. http://labs.adobe.com/misc/terms_of_use.html ) but the only choices are: Retail, Open Source, Freeware, Demo, Shareware. "Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or at least the ability to redistribute binaries (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free). Is there a way to make this clearer? Maybe "nonredistributable freeware"? - Dan
On Sunday 30 December 2007 02:04:16 Dan Kegel wrote:
Has anybody else been confused by this? When submitting an app to the appdb, I'm often flummoxed by what to put in the license field. I'm usually looking for something that means "Closed source, free to download, but not redistributable" (like e.g. http://labs.adobe.com/misc/terms_of_use.html ) but the only choices are: Retail, Open Source, Freeware, Demo, Shareware.
"Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or at least the ability to redistribute binaries (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free).
That's a good point; I didn't think about what freeware implied when making the choices.
Is there a way to make this clearer? Maybe "nonredistributable freeware"? - Dan
What about 'free to use'? Alexander N. Sørnes
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 02:04:16 Dan Kegel wrote:
Is there a way to make this clearer? Maybe "nonredistributable freeware"? - Dan
What about 'free to use'?
+1 to that choice, but I would like to add, 'Free to Use, not subject to OpenSource License types' or 'Free to Use, Author Retains Rights to Source Code' James McKenzie
On Sunday 30 December 2007 06:55:34 am Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes wrote:
On Sunday 30 December 2007 02:04:16 Dan Kegel wrote:
"Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or at least the ability to redistribute binaries (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free).
That's a good point; I didn't think about what freeware implied when making the choices.
FWIW, I've never taken "Freeware" to imply open source. To me, it simply means downloadable and useable without charge or fee.
On Sunday December 30 2007 01:04, Dan Kegel wrote:
"Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or at least the ability to redistribute binaries (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free).
Even in Linux world "freeware" doesn't imply neither GPL nor ability to redistribute binaries; it (often but not always) imply that the program have source code available, you can modify and redistribute it (along with the binaries if you wish). However, in Windows world word "freeware" always imply that you can download and use the software free of charge and that's all. A lot of additional restrictions may be made by author(s) of the software. 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
L. Rahyen schreef:
On Sunday December 30 2007 01:04, Dan Kegel wrote:
"Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or at least the ability to redistribute binaries (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free).
Even in Linux world "freeware" doesn't imply neither GPL nor ability to redistribute binaries; it (often but not always) imply that the program have source code available, you can modify and redistribute it (along with the binaries if you wish). However, in Windows world word "freeware" always imply that you can download and use the software free of charge and that's all. A lot of additional restrictions may be made by author(s) of the software. 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] In general, freeware means no source available, open source means source available and modifiable.
I would just go for freeware and 'open source' as options. Maarten
On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> 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. So it might be good to split freeware into two: Free to use, but not to share Free to use and to share - Dan
On Monday 31 December 2007 15:36:59 Dan Kegel wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> 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
On Dec 31, 2007 6:58 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <alex(a)thehandofagony.com> wrote:
So it might be good to split freeware into two: Free to use, but not to share Free to use and to share
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.
The 'downloadable apps' page filters based on the exact license field I'm talking about, so it won't help here, but it would benefit from the change I'm proposing. - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
participants (6)
-
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes -
Chris Robinson -
Dan Kegel -
James McKenzie -
L. Rahyen -
Maarten Lankhorst