Re: New DFSG Draft revision #3

[john@dhh.gt.org]

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I think this make the Artistic license non-DFSG-free :

> 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.
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This effectively nullifies that:

  Definitions:
        ...

        "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
        basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
        and so on.  (You will not be required to justify it to the
        Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
        as a market that must bear the fee.)

I think that a court would interpret this as meaning that the author has
promised not to sue you for infringing the copyright no matter how much
money you received as a "copying fee".  The net effect is that you could go
through the license and strike out all references to fees and charges and
leave it legally unchanged.  This is an example of how poorly drafted the
Artistic is.  If you want to say "I request but do not require that you
refrain from charging more than a reasonable copying fee for this work",
just do it.

Darren Benham writes:
> 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.

> Would something like that do it?

Certainly not.  Nobody has any idea what "a reasonable distribution fee"
might mean.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI