Re: ACL - The Ada Community License
Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Selling the library is not forbidden. The definition of "reasonable
> > copying fee" is vague enough that it doesn't restrict you any more
> > than the GPL. You can also charge whatever you want for "support".
> This is Debian's interpretation of "reasonable copying fee", and why
> that restriction doesn't cause it to be DFSG-unfree.
> However, is this also the FSF's interpretation for GPL compatibility?
The FSF thinks that the Clarified Artistic License is compatible. It
also has a similar clause which uses the term "Distribution Fee". In
the license, Distribution Fee is defined as a fee you charge for
providing a copy of this Package to another party.
It also has the "replaced system routines must pass regression tests",
so I don't know what the FSF is thinking.
I agree that it is a bit fuzzy, which is why the original Artistic
License is considered ambiguous. I guess the simplest thing is to
have people dual license the library under the GPL.