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. > > I wrote: > > Non-free. > > Peter S Galbraith writes: > > Why? > > And quotes: > > 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. > > And writes: > > What's the difference? > > Read the second sentence in the portion of the Artistic License that you > quoted. It grants permission to sell CD's with Perl on them as long there > is other stuff as well.
That's even more restrictive. Really means you can't make a Perl-only CD and sell it for $5. > Also read this, from the definitions section: Right, but there's no real difference between: 1- No charge, other than an "at-cost" distribution fee 2- You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this Package. > > "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.) > > This turns the clause you quoted into a non-binding request. So that's it: _You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder_ Seems like the license in question is very close to being DFSG-compliant. Although they never _really_ say you are allowed to modify the code: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such copies. 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. They mention you can't charge for distribution of `derivations', so that could be interpreted as an implicit permission to modify... Peter
