Re: Debian Package for Phylip - stripped to 3 questions
John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >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.
Ummm, where do you see this in the Artistic License? It says that you
can't charge a fee for the package, but you can charge whatever you
like for the act of transferring. How is that going to accomplish
Joe's aims (to get a cut for every copy sold)? There is a clause
stating that if you make any modification use it outside of your
company or organization, you have to provide sources. That is, unless
you rename the executable. I don't see how the Artistic License is
really any different than the GPL in this regard.