Re: ELM Copyright
On Sat, Oct 11, 1997 at 05:39:39PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > It says nothing about selling the software by itself. And that's no
> > accident, because the DFSG lists the Artistic License as an example
> > of a free license. And the Artistic License contains this clause:
> > | 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.
> > 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 wonder why Richard (?) didn't quote the definition of "Reasonable copying
fee" in 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. (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.)
> Not so! The Elm license has nothing like the first sentance in section 5
> of the Artistic license. This first sentance declares that I can
And it has not the definition for r.c.f. In fact, the use of this term is
uncertain (what is reasonable?).
> distribute the licensed software by itself on a floppy and recieve just
> compensation for my copying efforts. The Elm license would only allow me
> to charge for my cost of the floppy. The Elm license is more restrictive
> than the Artistic license.
> One of the things to keep clear about the DFSG is that it is only a guide
> for authors, to aid them in writing a distribution license. Personally I
> don't consider it an adequate definition of Free Software. For me, the
> critical factors for Free Software are centered around distribution
> restrictions and usage restrictions. Any imposition of a restriction on
> how the software can be distributed removes a freedom from that software.
> I still say that "if you can't sell it, it isn't Free!". (You are correct
> in surmising that I don't consider the Artistic License to be a "Free"
> license, because it specifically restricts payment for the package)
Dwarf, do you reconsider about the Artistic, remembering the quote above? I
don't find it useful to put such useless terms in a license (it doesn't
matter anyway how much you take for a programm under the Artistic, given the
definition above), but we have to accept that some want to be cavelling.
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .