I don't believe the sentence "You may not charge a fee for this Package itself" in Section 5 of the Artistic License would be consistent with the wording I proposed. Does anyone remember why that sentence was put into the Artistic License? Is it consistent with open source software? Is it enforced? /Larry
> -----Original Message----- > From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OSD Model Code -- Article 1 (Free Distribution) > > > > > With my rewording, there's also no need for the confusing term > > "aggregate software distribution." We only need to rely on the > > definition of the term "copies" in the Copyright Act. 17 USC 101. > > I like the clarity of Larry's , but I think the clumsy > wording of OSD #1 was to permit the Artistic License clause > #5 to qualify. > > Please read the Artistic License clause #5 and see if the > new proposed wording will continue to treat that license > the same way. > > Forrest > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3