On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Tille, Andreas wrote: >Hello > >Joe just tried to clean up my rather confuse posting. Just forget about >that and try to find a suggestion for a DFSG free license which complies >with Joes requirements. Unfortunately I doubt we will not find such >a license. > >Kind regards > > Andreas. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:38:49 -0800 (PST) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Tille Andreas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Debian Package for Phylip > > >Andreas Tille -- > >> Moreover I cleaned up the lines a little bit. Sorry for the inconvience >> and the long posting. > >I doubt anyone will respond as they still have to read through over 300 >lines of stuff first. > >You might try to just raise a few questions: >1. Does any version of GPL restrict how much money redistributers > can charge for the software?
The artistic sort of does, but that's not really a VERSION of the GPL _per se_, it's a completely different license. >2. Does any version of GPL require the software developer to be > paid a royalty on money charged for redistribution? >3. Does any version of GPL restrict people in any way from charging > for people to run the software on the seller's machine? Or > require a royalty to the software developer for this? I think that the artistic may do all the author wants and still be DFSG free... It's just GPL imcompatible. >I suspect the answer to all three questions is "no", but would be >happy to hear what the Debian folks think is the case. He's right, the GPL is completely not indicated in this case. > > -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
