Re: Editor and sensible-editor
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> /*
> * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
> */
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski <rogoyski@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> > > less restrictive, http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html.
> > > Does it still fail the Debian Free Software guidelines?
> >
> > | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows,
> > | or by mutual agreement:
> > | (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> > | (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> > | (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
> > | non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the packaged
> > | distribution.
> >
> > This might slip by, depending on the exactly what is meant by (c). It
> > seems to prevent the distribution of Pico with other commercial software,
> > so I think it fails DFSG 1.
>
> I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd.
> In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to
> anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom.
But I want to sell a CD with Debian and Adabas on it. So It's not C
anymore and its neigther a or b. With Debian I'm allowed to do that,
with pico not.
>
> They could have said it much more nicely, however. "You can't sell pine
> (or pico, pilot) themselves, but you can sell a CD containing a bunch of
> stuff in addition to pine." probably would have been nice and clear, but
> for some reason clarity and software licenses do not go hand-in-hand.
How much is a reasonable amount for a distribution containing just
pico in some format? 1Million $? If I want to offer such, it should be
my problem that nobody buys it. Theres no point in forbidding it.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: