[svlug] a course on managing open source...
shaeffer at neuralscape.com
Fri Jul 15 16:16:15 PDT 2005
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 03:18:49PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > vim license is freeware.
> "Freeware" isn't a term with any legally significant definition. It's
> common usage is to describe software which can be used without charge.
I presume you saw my second email.
Anyway, check the spec file for any redhat vim*.src.rpm package,
and you'll see redhat is defining the license as freeware. I am
definitely not. I could care less. (chuckles ;)
After my second email, I did wonder about the discrepency. I didn't
actually research this, but, based on just what I saw in the vim
source code last night, and in just a few moments of browsing the net,
charityware may not be defined in a legally binding way either. That
might explain why redhat generically defines the vim license in the
vim.spec file as freeware. I don't know for sure. If you care, you
might want to speak to the redhat folks about it.
If you find a legally well formed definition of the charityware license
out there on the Internet, then please let us know. I would take the
time to learn about it.
IANAL, so I will end my comments on this here. I'm very busy today.
Neuralscape, Palo Alto, Ca. 94306
shaeffer at neuralscape.com http://www.neuralscape.com
More information about the svlug