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

Re: Debian Package for Phylip - stripped to 3 questions

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:

> 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.

The "Clarified Artistic License" is not GPL incompatible at all; it's
also called the Artistic License verson 2.0.

The problem with the original Artistic License is that it was vague in
some important ways.  The problems are of wording, and not substance.
The FSF's judgment has been that the risk is too great with that
license to consider it free, but Debian decided quite a while ago that
it did fit the DFSG just fine.  Note that the issue here is about what
to do with certain kinds of ambiguity: Debian and the FSF do agree
about all the issues of substance that are necessary in free software

If one judged the original Artistic License to count as a free
software license, then it would not be incompatible with the GPL.  If
one judged the original to be too vague to count as a free software
license, then of course it can't be considered compatible with the


Reply to: