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

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
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: