Re: Is this license within the DSFG?

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

John Hasler wrote:

> Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a quotes:
> > No charge, other than an "at-cost" distribution fee, may be charged for
> > copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the
> > express written consent of the copyright holders.
> 
> Non-free.

Why?  How about:

   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.

What's the difference?  `at-cost' and `reasonable' ?

I'm confused on the issue, and just wondering...  If that's the
only problem, perhaps the authors _could_ be convinced to change
that word and make it free.

Peter