[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Package for Phylip - stripped to 3 questions

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:

>Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting.  Just forget about
>that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies
>with Joes requirements.  Unfortunately I doubt we will not find such
>a license.
>Kind regards
>        Andreas.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:38:49 -0800 (PST)
>From: joe@evolution.genetics.washington.edu
>To: Tille Andreas <TilleA@rki.de>
>Subject: Re: Debian Package for Phylip
>Andreas Tille --
>> Moreover I cleaned up the lines a little bit.  Sorry for the inconvience
>> and the long posting.
>I doubt anyone will respond as they still have to read through over 300
>lines of stuff first.
>You might try to just raise a few questions:
>1. Does any version of GPL restrict how much money redistributers
>   can charge for the software?

The artistic sort of does, but that's not really a VERSION of the GPL 
_per se_, it's a completely different license.

>2. Does any version of GPL require the software developer to be
>   paid a royalty on money charged for redistribution?
>3. Does any version of GPL restrict people in any way from charging
>   for people to run the software on the seller's machine?  Or
>   require a royalty to the software developer for this?

I think that the artistic may do all the author wants and still be DFSG 
free...  It's just GPL imcompatible.

>I suspect the answer to all three questions is "no", but would be
>happy to hear what the Debian folks think is the case.

He's right, the GPL is completely not indicated in this case.


Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu

Reply to: