[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ELM Copyright


On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
> > Note the words "reasonable copying fee", and "You may not charge a fee
> > for this Package itself".  I consider this language equivalent to that
> > in the Elm license.  If you reject Elm then you must also reject the
> > Artistic License, for the same reason.
> I don't think licenses that allow for a "reasonable copying fee" really
> jeopardize the goals of the DFSG.  
> We're never going to violate such a license in reality -- it is extremely
> unlikely, if not impossible, that anybody is going to be selling the Debian
> distribution for more than a "reasonable copying fee", which is a pretty
> vague term.

Quoting now from the Artistic licence on "reasonable copying fee".  Note
the final sentence.

        "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
        basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
        and so on.  (You will not be required to justify it to the
        Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
        as a market that must bear the fee.)

- -- 
                           |                 Do not, I beg you,
      Scott K. Ellis       |        look for anything behind phenomena.
      storm@gate.net       |       They are themselves their own lesson.
                           |                     -- Goethe

Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: