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. Peter
