Re: blitz license revised.

[John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.Arizona.EDU>]

lapeyr>dark>collection as a whole (and is thus incompatible with section 9 of
lapeyr>dark>the DFSG, "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software").
lapeyr>
lapeyr>	Yes, I think you are right.
lapeyr>
lapeyr>dark>If there is any semantic difference between "charge a reasonable
lapeyr>dark>copying fee for distribution" and "sell" (and I think there is), then
lapeyr>dark>it does not meet section 1 of the DFSG.
lapeyr>	Yes, I think there is a difference in meaning, but see my previous
lapeyr>post on the Artistic license.

	Hmm. The Artistic does not contaminate other software, and does
not restrict including perl on a CD with expensive commercial software.
So the licenses are quite different. ...


John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu>
Tucson,AZ     http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre