Re: 'Reclassification' terms

[Willie Yeo <willie@ssc.qld.edu.au>]

    Geesh, I hate to get involved with the Dean, but then, we have to look at some
citerias of the term 'reclassified' softwares.

Jeff Blakeney wrote:

> If that is the only criteria for reclassification then the fact that
> DiversiTune was not changed from being a commercial product to
> something else means it remains commercial and you shouldn't be
> distributing it.

    Commercial products comes under three categories :

1)    Publishers / Authors who sell themselves, or thru retailers

2)    Publishers / Authors who allow others to distribute them for free with
conditions.

3)    Publishers / Authors who allow free downloads from their websites.

    In other words, (1) is where you buy your software from software stores,
mail-orders etc. In (2) we have people like Brutual Deluxe giving LemminGS to users
of registered Bernie users, or DiversiTune in this case. And (3) Apple's HyperCard
GS and System 6.0.1 from their FTP (and authorised mirrors) sites.

    Distribution status can change to whatever dispite a non-change in status.

    Even said, there are shareware programs that are restricted. Or even Freewares
that are restricted, eg Marinetti.

    Even if one day Richard Bennett declares that Marinetti can be distributed from
any FTP sites does not mean that their classification has changed.

> In the case of DiversiTune it appears that the product's status and
> copyright status remained the same but the distribution methods
> changed.

    In my opinion, a change in classification will signify a 'reclassification'
status, and a change in distribution methods does not signify a 'reclassification'
status as there is no change in classification.

> I'm not sure if others agree with this concept or not but it seems to
> me that it covers everything pretty well.

    You're missing out Shareware -> Freewares ^.^