Re: CDF License
On Tue, 30, Nov, 2004 at 02:23:01PM +, Matthew Garrett spoke thus.. > There's no requirement that software be distributable for profit on its > own (though some believe that there should be). DFSG 1 is explicitly > written to allow that. Thanks Matthew, I just re-read DFSG 1 and see what you mean. Thought I'd check just to be safe. Mark -- Mark Hymers, University of Newcastle Medical School Intercalating Medical Student (MBBS / PhD)
Re: CDF License
Mark Hymers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm concerned about the first sentence which seems to claim that for-profit > distribution is not allowed unless it is part of another product. The > clause seems a bit wooly to me. There's no requirement that software be distributable for profit on its own (though some believe that there should be). DFSG 1 is explicitly written to allow that. The requirement to state that the code has been modified is less awkward than what DFSG 4 allows, so I don't see any problem with it. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
