Sender: root AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <3933FC9E.325D4031@inti.gov.ar>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:38:38 -0300
From: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.38 i686)
X-Accept-Language: es-AR, en, es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Linux
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0005290533580 DOT 1620-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net> <39329487 DOT 46A8C469 AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <0e96jskppp8cmgb6nkf16rch6ear9jrjcj AT 4ax DOT com> <3933BCBE DOT 11AF800D AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <htp7jso8b9afp1pjr5215ual4mtff1ou51 AT 4ax DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Damian Yerrick wrote:

>
> >> PC DOS isn't.  DR DOS from Lineo is your everyday,
> >> try-before-you-buy shareware.  Read the license.
> >>   ftp://ftp.lineo.com/pub/drdos/
> >
> >Let me see, it says:
> >
> >"* REDISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE IS PERMITTED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
> [snip]
> >So if we take Red Hat as an example then they can't redistribute it because
> >Red Hat CDs *are* a commercial purpose.
>
> So?  It's common for shareware developers to reserve commercial
> distribution rights,

No, it isn't common for shareware. Most shareware can be freely redistributed.
Even when the use can be limited to a period of time.

> generally to cover the developer's behind.

The whole discusion was about why Linux distros ships FreeDOS and not DR/PC-DOS.
And the answer is: because they can't break the law. Is that clear?

SET

--
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: set-soft AT usa DOT net set AT computer DOT org
                    set AT ieee DOT org set-soft AT bigfoot DOT com
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013