Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: Debian Linux] - re: rpl
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:28:54AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 07:17:46PM -0500, Aubin Paul wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I'd like to package this utility which I've found quite useful,
> > anyway, there were some questions that I raised regarding the license,
> > which states:
> > "not modified in any way, and it is not sold for profit."
> > The author has clarified somewhat below, but I don't know if this is
> > enough to get into main...
> We will only know when we see the revised license terms.
> But judging from his intentions:
> > I see what you mean. I will revise that with the next release. Selling a
> > CD-ROM or a distribution with rpl on it is fine. I just don't want someone
> > coming along and saying "Buy rpl for $19.95" or anything like that. If
> > your legal folks need that revised I can do so sooner rather than later.
> If that is what he is going to do (expempting distributions, and not
> allowing just to sell rpl), it will be non-free. Except if he is very
> careful with wording it (see the Artistic License, "Reasonable copying
The Clarified Artistic license is better (in this and other ways).
It s/Reasonable Copying/Distribution fee/ and other things..
obligatory opinion: it's always nicer if people just use existing
licenses.. makes life easier..
Brian Russo <email@example.com>
Debian/GNU Linux <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <email@example.com> http://www.lpsg.org