Subj : for the record
To   : Janis Kracht
From : Maurice Kinal
Date : Fri Apr 29 2011 05:05 am

Hey Janis!

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

 JK> 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.

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

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

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

 JK> say, if someone wants to distribute someone else's work, 
 JK> 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.  :-)

 JK> Sometimes written permission from an author is necessary, for 
 JK> 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)

.