Re: FWD: Bug#121916: analog should be in non-free
Stephen Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing
> the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the
> program, and "reasonable" does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy
> the DFSG perfectly well to me.
Alas, "reasonable" does have a fairly certain legal meaning, and it
does imply a limit.
> If you're still not convinced (is there any consensus on this?), I'm willing
> to change the first sentence to:
> > You may charge for distributing the program, but you must not do anything
> > to suggest to the person to whom it is distributed that analog is anything
> > other than free software.
> I actually don't think that this changes the meaning at all, but I do think
> that it weakens the emphasis.
I think that such a change would make the license clearly DFSG free.