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

Re: New DFSG Draft revision #3

On 14-Jan-99 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I think this make the Artistic license non-DFSG-free :
We (probably) don't want that.

> 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.
So, we need to add an allowed restriction:  (writing off the cuff)

The license can restrict the amount charged for the software as long as it
allows the licensee to charge atleast a reasonable distribution fee.  The
license can not restrict the cost of other software included on the same
distribution and it can not restrict the cost of the distribution as a whole.

(I think the advertising part is covered elsewhere in the DFSG under the part
about misrepresentation)

Would something like that do it?
* http://benham.net/index.html                                     <><  *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
*    Darren Benham     * Version: 3.1                                   *
*  <gecko@benham.net>  * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
*       KC7YAQ         * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS--   *
*   Debian Developer   * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++   *
*  <gecko@debian.org>  * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+                            *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*

Attachment: pgpW1HqN_Y_QY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: