appdb license choices unclear

[Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes]

On Monday 31 December 2007 15:36:59 Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <research at science.su> wrote:
> >         According to Wikipedia: "The *only* criterion for being
> > classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for
> > use for an unlimited time at no cost" [1].
> >         [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware
>
> That page also mentions that some people disagree with that,
> and say that software which cannot be shared with others
> is not freeware.
>
> The difference is interesting to me because nonredistributable
> freeware can be pulled from the internet at any time
> by its author, whereas redistributable freeware will always
> be available via mirrors.  Thus the Wine community can
> count on redistributable freeware, but not in general on
> nonredistributable.
>
> This matters sometimes, e.g. when considering which apps to
> put in our "must run in 1.0" test suite.
>

Could we use the 'downloadable apps' page for that?  It shows the apps for 
which there are currently listed free downloads, optionally filtered by 
licence.

> So it might be good to split freeware into two:
>   Free to use, but not to share
>   Free to use and to share
> - Dan