Re: blitz license revised.
> >> 2. The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part
> >> of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable
> >> copying fee is charged for the software collection.
John Lapeyre wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
> >Surely this is against clause 1 of the DFSG since it restricts for-profit
> >selling of the distribution. Including this in main meant that I cannot
> >sell a Debian CD for 1000.00 UKP (not that I've found anyone stupid enough
> >to buy it at that price yet, but one lives in hope ;-)
>
> Well you may be kind of correct. However the DFSG also says
>
> 10.Example Licenses
>
> The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses
> that we consider "free".
>
> And , the Artistic License says,
>
> 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
> this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you
> may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial)
> programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution
> provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own.
Hmm, this has come up before. The Artistic License also says:
"Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the
Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
as a market that must bear the fee.)
As far as I can tell, this is not semantically different from "sell" :-)
If someone buys the CD for whatever price you set, you thereby have proof
that the market accepts your fee.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: