Re: Selling Artistic License Software (WAS: Re: non-DFSG section and CD distributers)
On 18 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> 64:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/admin/super_3.10.6-3.deb - GPL | Artistic
> 285:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/devel/slang0.99.34-dev_0.99.38-2.10.deb - GPL | Artistic
> 286:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/devel/slang0.99.38-dev_0.99.38-2.10.deb - GPL | Artistic
> 382:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/editors/ee_126.1.89-4.1.deb - Artistic
> 393:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/editors/fte_0.45-4.deb - GPL | Artistic
> 691:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/mail/libmime-perl_3.204-1.deb - GPL | Artistic
> 692:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/mail/mailagent_3.58-2.deb - Artistic
> 693:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/mail/mailtools_1.09-1.deb - Artistic
> 1118:hamm/hamm/binary-i386/utils/patch_2.5-1.deb - Artistic
> (There's probably more than that, I still haven't checked even half of
> all the sections); ee, and patch are perl-free.
Does anybody know why anybody would license a program "GPL | Artistic"
while these are two different licenses? And what are the consequences?
Could one write a GPL'ed program based on, say, fte? Could one write a
program based on fte with Artistic license? Or would the program have to
be licensed "GPL | Artistic", too?
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .