[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG-ness of two



> > > > > > - 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.
> > > 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.
> > 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.
The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the
meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source
sold to other developers.

Attachment: pgp6F2WUMEpO_.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: