Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
[-ocaml-maint cc trimmed]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)
> 1. Free Redistribution
>
> 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. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for
> such sale.
>
> Okay, so it says "aggregate", and selling _a_ book does not do in an
> aggregate form. So I guess we need the right to modify and distribute
> for documentation to be free.
>
> I think we should clarify http://www.debian.org/intro/free which says:
>
> Some of the features these licenses have in common.
> * There is no restriction on distributing, or even selling, the software.
>
> since selling is only needed to be permitted in an aggregate form.
That's an interesting point. Does that mean that the following licence
is DFSG-free?
This software is Copyright (C) 1991-2000 by Wayne Davison.
Portions Copyright (C) by Clifford A. Adams, Stan Barber, Larry Wall,
and others. All rights reserved.
Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary profit
gained specifically from the use or reproduction of this software, it
is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and this copyright
notice is included prominently in any copy made. Software bundlers
who include trn among other diverse applications are exempt from this
restriction, as long as the distribution includes trn's source code
(including this license).
The authors make no claims as to the fitness or correctness of this
software for any use whatsoever, and it is provided as is. Any use of
this software is at the user's own risk.
It *feels* non-free, but technically it allows people to sell the
software as part of an aggregate distribution as demanded by DFSG#1, and
it doesn't seem to breach the other points. Does this signal that it
should be in main, that there's a deficiency in the DFSG, that there's a
deficiency in my understanding, or something else?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: