Hey Janis!

I see that this fine and upstanding point has access to this echo and
decided to turn it on after seeing the posting of the rules on the Prism
BBS's message area for pdnecho.

Although not explicit but perhaps implicit, the rules could be
applicable to Opensource licenced software such as the GNU's or BSD
ones.

I refer to;

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

as the defacto source of what I am referring to in this particular
message.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
* Origin: The Pointy Stick Society (1:261/38.9)

Hi Maurice,

I see that this fine and upstanding point has access to this echo and
decided to turn it on after seeing the posting of the rules on the Prism BBS's message area for pdnecho.

Glad you noticed my echo - Welcome :)

Although not explicit but perhaps implicit, the rules could be
applicable to Opensource licenced software such as the GNU's or BSD
ones.

I refer to;

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

as the defacto source of what I am referring to in this particular
message.

The PDN does distribute some files with no source code, but generally source is
preferred.. that is the point of the PDN, distributing freeware source. Licences included in files may be of any type (copy-left-ish, I guess) as long as there are no limititations for our distribution of the files.. Needless to say, if someone wants to distribute someone else's work, distribution rights of
authors must be checked beforehand. Sometimes written permission from an author is necessary, for instance.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Hey Janis!

28 Apr 11 21:28, Janis Kracht wrote to Maurice Kinal:

Glad you noticed my echo - Welcome :)

Actually I've been aware of it for ages but I think this might be my
first post, or at least the first post from a remote.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

as the defacto source of what I am referring to in this particular
message.

The PDN does distribute some files with no source code, but
generally source is preferred.. that is the point of the PDN, distributing freeware source.

The source I refer to isn't source code but instead a source for the
differing licences with respect to opensource. Depending on the license
there is no restictions as per distribution of compiled binaries with
source as long as the license in question is honoured.

I am not aware of any license issues with freeware unless of course the
author states that there is one. I have seen sites list certain
software that could easily be listed as GPLed and unless the software
was modified by anyone other than the author it need not supply source
code. Also, and probably more applicable to distributed software these
days, is that the software might contain the version of the libstdc++.so
(g++ lib) the software was compiled against without needing to distribute
the source code for the gcc version employed as long as the gcc source
wasn't modified. That makes it easier for c++ coders to distribute
their work and ensure compatibilty, or so I've heard. I don't recall
offhand when this revision was made to accomodate this particular
circumstance.

Licences included in files may be of
any type (copy-left-ish, I guess) as long as there are no
limititations for our distribution of the files..

Exactly. Stating such certainly doesn't hurt and may even be a
godsend.

say, if someone wants to distribute someone else's work,
distribution rights of authors must be checked beforehand.

Not unless something was changed. Usually it is enough to state the
license in question and it shouldn't hurt to credit the author. Also
stating where the source can be obtained should be encouraged. Build
scripts are always a nice touch methinks. :-)

Sometimes written permission from an author is necessary, for
instance.

I believe that is dependent on the license and whether the source was
modified.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
* Origin: The Pointy Stick Society (1:261/38.9)