Re: DFSG-ness of two
> > Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:26:59AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > - (or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > - use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > - not be charged seperatly.
> > >
> > > But a developer doesn't have the freedom to sell the software for
> > > profit to other developers.
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:46:04 +0900 Charles Plessy <email@example.com> wrote:
> > as suggested in the original question, this clause is similar to clause 1 of
> > the SIL Open Font License 1.1, which is DFSG-Free.
> > > Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original
> > > or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself.
Le Sat, May 30, 2015 at 11:58:06AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit :
> The second sentence is similar to the Open Font License, but I was
> talking about the first sentence.
The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much
freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first
sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree
that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free.
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan