Le Sun, May 31, 2015 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Riley Baird a écrit : > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source > > > > > > > - (or altered version of it) to other developers. When You > > > > > > > - use this product in a comercial package, the source may > > > > > > > - not be charged seperatly. > > > > The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much > > freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first > > sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree > > that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free. > > The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the > meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source > sold to other developers.
That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm with the original author if this is what he intended. In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks, codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced by the first. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150531013253.ga11...@falafel.plessy.net
