On Friday 22 July 2005 03:28 am, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Sean Kellogg <skellogg@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and
> non-profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6.
> License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a provision that
> forbids charging a fee for distribution is non-free, or at least bad
> policy. Certainly having a package that prohibits charging for
> distribution would prevent it from being on a Debian CD sold by one of
> the vendors. Based on the DFSG I'd have to point to #1 and #6... but
> both are kind of stretches.
That aspect of license 2 isn't a problem - the DFSG don't require that
people be able to charge for an item of software, merely the aggregate
work.
Why is that the case? The license says:
"The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of California code
itself. The licensee may, however, charge for additions, extensions, or
support."