Re: Debian Package for Phylip - stripped to 3 questions
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote:
>Hello
>
>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
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: