Stephen Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that the original complaint, and some of the responses, are missing > the point. It is explicitly permitted to charge someone for sending them the > program, and "reasonable" does not specify any limit. This seems to satisfy > the DFSG perfectly well to me.
Alas, "reasonable" does have a fairly certain legal meaning, and it does imply a limit. > If you're still not convinced (is there any consensus on this?), I'm willing > to change the first sentence to: > > You may charge for distributing the program, but you must not do anything > > to suggest to the person to whom it is distributed that analog is anything > > other than free software. > > I actually don't think that this changes the meaning at all, but I do think > that it weakens the emphasis. I think that such a change would make the license clearly DFSG free. Thomas
