Message-Id: <199807051534.LAA07475@mail.enterprise1701.com>
From: "Mike Webb" <mwebb AT mail DOT enterprise1701 DOT com>
To: OpenDOS AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 11:14:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Free distribution versus Use
Reply-to: mwebb AT mail DOT enterprise1701 DOT com
In-reply-to: <199807050915.CAA20014@ shell1.ncal.verio.com>
Precedence: bulk

> From:          Howard Schwartz <theo AT ncal DOT verio DOT com>
> To say one can distribute or download  DR. DOS 7.02 for free 
> e.g.,
> REDISTRIBUTION OF THE SOFTWARE IS PERMITTED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES 
> is VERY different than saying an individual can use it for free.
> Distribution usually refers to placing a program on various site
> for download, even though the program itself may be shareware.

My thoughts exactly. I was going over my various downloads of Caldera's DOS 
and was intrigued to discover that in my 12/97 download of OpenDOS 7.02 the 
license statement had no restriction on evaluation by non-business users 
(current downloads say "limited to a reasonable period") which would in 
effect make it freeware for non-business use (Qmodem Test Drive's license 
is the same way). However, it also prohibits redistribution. 
Effectively, that copy is "free to use", but not "free to distribute", the 
reverse of the license agreement accompanying present downloads.