Peter S Galbraith writes:
> I thought that restricting the charging of _only_ a redistribution
> fee was not DFSG-compliant, yet this is what the Artistic license
> says:
5. 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.
> I don't know why I posting this. Perhaps only because I'm
> stunned. How did I get that wrong?
> My question is: Isn't this a big restriction on freedom?
In my opinion, yes. However, in the specific case of the Artistic,
consider this as well:
Definitions:
....
"Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the
Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
as a market that must bear the fee.)
The legal effect of this is to grant you permission to charge whatever you
like. It's essentially guiltware.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
