> > > > > > > > - 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. > > > > > > 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. > > That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm > with the original author if this is what he intended. Would you be able to do that? I'm not quite sure that I understand your interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to write the email well. > In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms > in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and > lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, > codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation > taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced > by the first. Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow this option.
Description: PGP signature