Re: Is this license within the DSFG?
> Right, but there's no real difference between:
> 1- No charge, other than an "at-cost" distribution fee
> 2- You may not charge a fee for this Package itself.
> You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
> this Package.
>From the DFSG:
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources.
>From the Artistic:
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.
The Artistic permits selling the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different sources
and therefor would comply with the DFSG even without the clause I quoted
from the definitions section of the Artistic.
> They mention you can't charge for distribution of `derivations', so that
> could be interpreted as an implicit permission to modify...
Permission to make copies implies permission to make partial copies, which
is what "modifications" are as far as copyright law is concerned. Thus any
license that grants permissions to make copies and does not explicitly
forbid modifications allows them. However, Debian has usually asked for
explicit permission for modifications.
The license in question forbids sale of copies for more than "at-cost",
whatever that might be, and makes no exception for aggregates. It is
therefor non-free.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: