It has been suggested to find a way to make .script developers responsible about the use of Third Party Files embedded into .scripts, from which it derives the need to help them in determining whether a file or package is re-distributable under the new, proposed policies.
Let me be very clear about this, to avoid any misunderstandings, we are talking here in the future tense, no Rule has been changed till now, current Rules can be found here:
They are subject to discussion, as they have always been, here:
Let's start from the following, integrally copied from the closed thread here:
I favore the system of 'good fath', we host/embed software that is eighter share- or freeware and is therefore intended to be distributed and assume in good faith that the developer will welcome this promoting of his software.
This applies to a large part of freeware and shareware.
Still, it does not apply to the freeware or shareware that explicitly denies re-packaging or re-distribution.
To continue on the example posted about Foxit PDF-Reader:
it's hard to use the "therefore" as you did or sustain that you, in good faith, presumed that they will welcome this promoting of their software:
as I see it the .script developer should ask for re-distribution agreement, if he wants to embed the file into his .script.
6. REDISTRIBUTION: You can not redistribute Foxit Reader under this agreement, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org for information on our free redistribution agreement.
As said, I think that most Freeware/Shareware Authors or Rights Owners will graciously release this permission, and the more will do with Winbuilder everyday gaining popularity.
So, I think we can start to draw some "tentative" lines:
1) Software that needs any form of registration to be downloaded from the original site CANNOT be embedded
2) Software that cannot be downloaded from the original site CANNOT be embedded (say it's Warez )
3) Software that explicitly prohibits re-distribution or re-packaging in its EULA or homepage CANNOT be embedded
4) Any software that does not belong to any of the above categories can be assumed to be freely redistributable "in good faith" and thus CAN be embedded
5) Any software that cannot be downloaded from the original site, but that was at one time available for public download, provided that it's EULA does not explicitly prohibits re-distribution or re-packaging, CAN be embedded
6) Any Software CAN be embedded as long as the .script developer obtains a re-distribution agreement from software Author or Owner
The above should cover most of the situations, with the exception of:
Any Freeware (NOT Shareware, NOT Commercial Software) whose Author is not anymore reachable to ask him for a free re-distribution permission (say it's FREE Abandonware)
Whenever any software is embedded, Nuno will provide a way within Winbuilder to actually list the embedded files, and a way to credit the Author/Owner in a perceivable manner for the end user of the .script.
The same information needs to be included in the download description or in the post (see proposed amendment to Rules #1.a).
What do you think of this?
P.S.: This thread is intended only as a way to create guidelines for as much as possible easily understand what will be acceptable and accepted to be hosted directly (as is) or indirectly (embedded into .scripts) on boot-land servers.
If you want to discuss the way the new policy will be coded and eventually enforced, please use this thread: