Re: RFC: criteria A4 should be a C-class criteria

[bill-auger]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:04:41 -0500 Richard wrote:
> I think we are having a misunderstanding in the expression
> "unlicensed works".

i mean very literally, software for which the author has
not granted any license (all-rights-reserved by default) - all
forges allow that, and thats fine; but the forges freely
distribute all software, with no discretion nor explanation to
the users of their permissions to it


On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:04:41 -0500 Richard wrote:
> It does NOT mean that the repo has no authorization to distribute copies.
> 
> Rather, it means that people who download it from the repo have no
> authorization to REdistribute copied.

even if the forge is authorized to distribute works, which the
users may not re-distribute (use, or modify); the forge could
still, make some attempt to inform the users of that caveat -
preferably, it would be presented prominently, beside each
download button, and not buried in the TOS

im not sure if any of them, mention a single word (even in their
TOS) about the implications of licensing, or downloading source
code which has no license - all software on web forges is
presented uniformly, simply as: here, take one, it's "free" -
they are effectively, like the old "freeware" websites, in the
eyes of the naive, except that freeware/shareware authors do
intend for their works to be re-distributable


On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:04:41 -0500 Richard wrote:
> Distributing nonfree software
> (and nonfree useful works of other kinds) is immoral.  Level A
> is the right place for this.

ok, so i think it is worth investigating, and likely to be noted
on the list, at _some_ importance level