On 14-Jan-99 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > I think this make the Artistic license non-DFSG-free : We (probably) don't want that. > > 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. So, we need to add an allowed restriction: (writing off the cuff) The license can restrict the amount charged for the software as long as it allows the licensee to charge atleast a reasonable distribution fee. The license can not restrict the cost of other software included on the same distribution and it can not restrict the cost of the distribution as a whole. (I think the advertising part is covered elsewhere in the DFSG under the part about misrepresentation) Would something like that do it? -- ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpKOgg91Ly4r.pgp
Description: PGP signature