29 Sep
2002
29 Sep
'02
8:41 p.m.
Hi,
Ian Bell hat gesagt: // Ian Bell wrote:
On Sunday 29 Sep 2002 9:49 am, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Point taken, that's a difference. But even prohibiting to *make* money
qualifies a license as a non-free license because of the same reasons,
I mentioned.
For example: I buy my Debian CDs from a vendor, who does make a profit
from selling them, and this is only possible, because all Debian
software allows this kind of use. Now, if the Debian community decides
to adopt some kind of Debian anthem, this song's license must allow,
that it is selled with the rest of the distribution. A song, whose
license forbids this, could not be this "Hymn to Freedom".
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
I imposes a restriction on free redistribution:
You are not allowed to
redistribute and (&&) take money for it. This is a 'non-free'
restriction according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the
Open Source (tm) definition:
Not really. He said 'making' money not 'taking' money. Making money
implies
a profit and if I were a good lawyer I would argue that I could sell copies
of his software at cost.