On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:04:12PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > > Yes, from the Artistic License: > > However, the Artistic License also has this: > > "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the > basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, > and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the > Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large > as a market that must bear the fee.) > > Does the Crack license have a similar definition? It's important, > because it pulls the teeth from the "reasonable copying fee" requirement. > IANAL, TINLA, IANADD etc. (see also disclaimer.h in sig) It appears that the crack license has an even bigger exception for the DFSG to drive through: The fee restriction is entirely waved if crack is distributed as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources, provided "you" do not misrepresent the identity of the copyright holder. But yes, that definition is (word for word) in the Crack license too, see the original post. Notice, by the way, that the Crack license sometimes requires the source to be included in the binary package, since it doesn't contain the GPL exemption about "offering access from the same place". Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Attachment:
pgp71UDVMHovF.pgp
Description: PGP signature