On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 09:56:37AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > John Hasler wrote: > > > Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a quotes: > > > No charge, other than an "at-cost" distribution fee, may be charged for > > > copies, derivations, or distributions of this material without the > > > express written consent of the copyright holders. > > > > Non-free. > > Why? How about: > > You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of > this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of > this Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. > However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other > (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly > commercial) software distribution provided that you do not > advertise this Package as a product of your own. > > What's the difference? `at-cost' and `reasonable' ? > > I'm confused on the issue, and just wondering... If that's the > only problem, perhaps the authors _could_ be convinced to change > that word and make it free. Not letting someone sell your work, basicly, is non-free. Artistic was let in by justification and excuses -- basicly, the license authors put in a phrase saying don't charge but we're not going to check up on you so you can really charge whatever you can get away with as long as you say it's for "distribution fees". Ok.. that's a slightly cynical view of it.. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <gecko@benham.net> <>< * * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org> * * <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org> * =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgp6orXLJ6zo6.pgp
Description: PGP signature