Re: Nedit 5.0 license questions
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Erik Andersen wrote:
>
> > (This email refers to both
> > http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines and
> > and ftp://ftp.fnal.gov/pub/nedit/v5_0/README )
> >
> > The Nedit 5.0 license has a couple of phrases that, depending on
> > interpretation, could force it stay in the non-free part of Debian, or
> > allow it to move to the main distribution.
> >
> > First, the license contains the phrase "Any distribution of the
> > software available from this server shall be at no charge, except for
> > nominal media and distribution costs." The word "nominal" could be
> > interpreted to mean "whatever you can justify on the basis of media
> > cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on."
> > (quoted from the Artistic license). If we interpret the license this
> > way, then this phrase is in compliance with DFSG #1 -- Free
> > Redistribution. It would be nice to have a clearer definition of
> > what "nominal media and distribution costs." is supposed to mean.
>
> In my interpretation, `at no charge, except for nominal media and
> distribution costs' means that one can not make profit out of
> _distributing_ the package (not if the package itself). This is a
> violation of DFSG #1: `The license may not require a royalty or
> other fee for such sale.'
The sentence you refer to in the end of the paragraph above refers to the
fact that the seller may not be charged a royalty or fee for permision to
sell the media referenced previously. (this is similar to other clauses
that say ", without fee," and have been interpreted to refer to
"distribution license fee".
>
> > The other phrase that is difficult to interpret is the phrase: "To
> > obtain a license to commercialize any of the software programs
> > available from this server, contact FNAL's Office of Research and
> > Technology Applications...".
>
> That's a tough one. I suggest you contact them about whether they are
> referring to `commercial products incorporating NEdit' or `commercial
> products including NEdit'.
>
While I agree that use of such language complicates the interpretation of
the license, I interpret this to mean that a "commercial distribution
license" is available. The idea being, if you are going to sell the
software (and not just your service) then you probably owe the author a
royalty. We have several packages with licenses that speak to alternate,
commercial, license availability. I'm not real comfortable with these
ideas as they portray "free" ownership as being less valuable than "fee"
ownership.
> (I think someone selling a Debian CD-ROM for profit sells a product
> including NEdit but he/she doesn't sell NEdit or a derived product.)
>
I make a profit on almost every CD I sell. I do so my charging a higher
price for the distribution of the CD than it costs me to produce. I do so
by charging the "going rate" for such a commodity. It appears that I don't
violate either the Artistic License, or the one sited for Nedit, in doing
so.
> Perhaps this doesn't matter at all, since the part above already fails the
> DFSG. Sorry.
>
Don't be so hasty ;-)
>
Waiting is,
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: