(CC to d-legal; it's related, at least due to edict-el, and they're a lot better at this topic than I am.)
Jim Breen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Originally you couldn't charge for packaging it. But people were free > to write shareware or commercial software, e.g. Unidict, then say "to > use this you need to download EDICT which is free.". It was partly to > regularize this that I changed the licence. Does this prevent plain GPL software from using the EDICT? I've seen GPL software (ie. JFC) with an added "no commercial use" restriction. (I hope they know that if they do this, they're no longer GPL-compatible and so can't link against GPL libraries.) That makes any software using the EDICT non-free, at least according to Debian. Hmm. "edict-el" in Debian appears to be GPL'd without any exceptions, which would seem to put it in violation (since that means the program can be used and sold commercially.) It could end up being sold as part of contrib. (I'm somewhat curious on whether the EDICT license can prevent things like the distribution of edict-el. It uses it, but could potentially be used with similarly-formatted databases, and the distribution of edict-el seems to have nothing inherently related to EDICT.) (Strictly speaking, it's in contrib, since it depends on a non-free package.) Aside, "Permission for such usage will normally be granted in return for a fee based on a proportion of either the subscription charges." Of either the subscription charges or what? > (I had trouble convincing RMS that non-software didn't really fit under > the GPL.) Of course, you'll have people everything from "the GPL does apply to non-software" to "databases and documentation *are* software. Regardless of this, it seems obvious that the *principles* of the GPL can easily apply to documentation and databases. (Yet others will debate the value of doing that.) I'm curious why you'd have tried to convince RMS of this: it seems clear you don't want the EDICT to be freely used commercially, and the GPL would allow this. I suppose you could apply a license that allows commercial use in free software, and alternative, fee-based terms for proprietary software. (That is, alternative GPLish-or-no-commercial-use licensing.) That could probably get EDICT into Debian, which is currently in non-free. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]