Re: [joe@laffeycomputer.com: Re: Debian Linux] - re: rpl
That's a good suggestion. I'm sending him an e-mail, asking if the AL
suits his needs.
Regards,
Aubin
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 03:30:35AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> 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
> > fee").
>
> 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 <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
> Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
> LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
Reply to: