On 15-Jan-99 john@dhh.gt.org wrote: > Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> I think this make the Artistic license non-DFSG-free : > >> 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. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This effectively nullifies that: Are you saying that, under the offered Draft, that the artistic license would still be qualify as DFSG? Under the offered Draft, the section in question states: | Anyone must be able to give away or sell copies of the executables and | sources without paying a fee or royalty. However, nobody can be | required to distribute the software. and the artistic license does say: "you may not charge a fee". It seems to me that these two are in conflict with each other... even if there is "loop-hole" that lets a person get around 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:
pgpsNwJ7Oselv.pgp
Description: PGP signature