Important: The Morality of PBI files

[sblevin]

While making and testing a pbi file, I was reading through the license agreement, to see what I had to add to the "Display License" box of the package builder. When I tested the software (a console app), it too displayed certain information requested in the source code license; that it was a modified version, the original source writers not supporting that version, and who made the modification and contact details.

Then it hit me.

Someone else had downloaded the source code, reworked it for BSD, recompiled it, tested it, built a FreeBSD Makefile, configuration and installation routines, and spent a LOT of time creating and maintaining the port.

Then - I just go and download the binary, repackage it with a couple of basic scripts and put an icon in, upload it and BINGO.

How do we reconcile the fact that unless we are building from source, that someone else has essentially done all the work?

Do we need to contact the port maintainer, seek permission, give a courtesy e-mail, give notice of the original work so far by the port/pkg maker?

Someone is doing a LOT more work that PBI 'rebuilders' - don't they get any credit? Is it actually legit in the first place to hack open a binary distribution?

I'm not being all weirdo and lame about this - credit where credit's due.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

[kmoore134]

This are good concerns. Not sure what to think about it though. Look at RPM's, people make those, but no credit is given to those who created the source, or ported it over to various distros. Even package files can be created from the hard work of those who used the ports system.

I guess in the end, i try to give credit, where credit is due. Thats why its important to list the program author / website when possible.