Re: Selling Artistic License Software (WAS: Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers)
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [About the Artistic License]
>
> > You have to ask yourself, "If all software were licensed under these terms
> > would it be free?". My answer would be no, because there would be no
> > "software that can be sold" to "aggregate" with.
> >
> > This license specifically says, "you can not sell this software". It
> > provides loopholes, like aggregation, copying fees and support, as avenues
> > for making money, but I view them as slightly dishonest. The "can not
> > sell" clause is a distribution restriction, and for me, makes the package
> > less free.
>
> Hm... I find it quite hard to make sense of item 5 of the Artistic
> License, but I don't think the conclusion you draw in the first
> paragraph is correct.
>
> -- Artistic License:
> | 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.
> --
>
> The last sentence says nothing about the licenses of the other
> programs, except to explicitly allow commercial programs. It seems to
> me that it is perfectly valid if the programs it is aggregated with
> are also under the Artistic License. The only requirement is that
> "you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own".
I see your point. When I first read this, I took the references to
"commercial" to mean that you had to aggregate with something that you
could sell.
>
> I still don't know what "You may not charge a fee for this Package
> itself" means, though. What is the difference between charging
> a fee for the Package and charging a fee for its distribution?
>
This is the part that makes it less-free from my point of view, although,
as Bruce points out, other clauses seem to invalidate this one.
The last sentance that says, "...provided that you do not advertise this
Package as a product of your own.", is a clear declaration of confusion
over issues of authorship and issues of ownership.
Let me start with an example:
I hold copyright to my book. You can "own" a copy of the book by
purchasing that copy. Your ownership does not invalidate my copyright.
The line in the license seems to be trying to protect the copyright of the
author by declaring issues of "ownership" in said license. In other words,
the "protection" provided by the license is already given by the
copyright. From my point of view, it is the freeness of software that
allows me to "own" any of it that I want, simply by downloading it. My
"ownership" doesn't invalidate the rights of the copyright holder. This
is, in fact, one of the strong protections provided in the GPL. (The fact
that it can't be removed from the associated software)
For me, the ambiguity of such a poorly writted declaration is dangerous
because different interpretations yield different allowed behaviors. I
have equal qualms about software that is licensed with the statement,
"either the GPL or Artistic License may apply to this package", since I
see these as very different licenses.
As I said to Bruce, in another posting, I'm pragmatic enought to accept
the compromise this license represents, I just feel uneasy about it.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
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: