Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) & (H))
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
>
> > Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( "Reasonable copying
> > fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication
> > charges, time of people involved, and so on.)
>
> In the case of the Artistic License, it was explicitly understood that
> reasonable was hugely broad. This is not, however, the normal meaning
> of the term.
Right. Let me rephrase it bit. Their license says:
Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way providing
that it is distributed for free, except for any reasonable charges for
printing, distribution, staff time, etc.
which sounds like the Artistic license's
"Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis of
media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on"
e.g. both sound vague enough to me to drive a truck through. I don't
think we can reasonably say this one is non-free without saying the same
about the Artistic license. This is just one of those points I'd like
to see clarified in a new version of the DFSG.
I had more concerns about the distribution of all the source code together
(preventing portions to be used easily in derived works) but I guess
that's similar to a patch-only clause.
just my two cents.
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: