John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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.
Ummm, where do you see this in the Artistic License? It says that you can't charge a fee for the package, but you can charge whatever you like for the act of transferring. How is that going to accomplish Joe's aims (to get a cut for every copy sold)? There is a clause stating that if you make any modification use it outside of your company or organization, you have to provide sources. That is, unless you rename the executable. I don't see how the Artistic License is really any different than the GPL in this regard. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
