Re: blitz license revised.
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
dark>John Lapeyre wrote:
dark>> Here is the change. I think this is definitly free. If I don't
dark>> hear objections, I'll plan on putting it in main
dark>>
dark>> 2. The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part
dark>> of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable
dark>> copying fee is charged for the software collection.
dark>
dark>collection as a whole (and is thus incompatible with section 9 of
dark>the DFSG, "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software").
Yes, I think you are right.
dark>If there is any semantic difference between "charge a reasonable
dark>copying fee for distribution" and "sell" (and I think there is), then
dark>it does not meet section 1 of the DFSG.
Yes, I think there is a difference in meaning, but see my previous
post on the Artistic license.
John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu>
Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre
Reply to: