That's a good suggestion. I'm sending him an e-mail, asking if the AL suits his needs.
Regards, Aubin On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 03:30:35AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:28:54AM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 07:17:46PM -0500, Aubin Paul wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'd like to package this utility which I've found quite useful, > > > anyway, there were some questions that I raised regarding the license, > > > which states: > > > "not modified in any way, and it is not sold for profit." > > > > > > The author has clarified somewhat below, but I don't know if this is > > > enough to get into main... > > > > We will only know when we see the revised license terms. > > > > But judging from his intentions: > > > > > I see what you mean. I will revise that with the next release. Selling a > > > CD-ROM or a distribution with rpl on it is fine. I just don't want someone > > > coming along and saying "Buy rpl for $19.95" or anything like that. If > > > your legal folks need that revised I can do so sooner rather than later. > > > > If that is what he is going to do (expempting distributions, and not > > allowing just to sell rpl), it will be non-free. Except if he is very > > careful with wording it (see the Artistic License, "Reasonable copying > > fee"). > > The Clarified Artistic license is better (in this and other ways). > It s/Reasonable Copying/Distribution fee/ and other things.. > > > obligatory opinion: it's always nicer if people just use existing > licenses.. makes life easier.. > > > -- > Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Debian/GNU Linux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.org > LPSG "member" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.lpsg.org > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
