From: Bernhard Reiter (bernhard@intevation.de)
Date: Mon Aug 05 2002 - 12:09:15 CDT
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:29:24AM -0500, Kent Landfield wrote:
> # I guess that many distributions and sites did package and use archive/
> # in mistake as they probably did not notice that the license actually
> # forbits this.
>
> No it does not. The header states...
> ** This software is Copyright (c) 1996 by Kent Landfield.
> **
> ** Permission is hereby granted to copy, distribute or otherwise
> ** use any part of this package as long as you do not try to make
> ** money from it or pretend that you wrote it. This copyright
> ** notice must be maintained in any copy made.
> */
> If you are using it on a commercial site to manage your commercial email
> traffic there is no problem. If a vendor is distributing this as part
> of a larger package and are not selling this by itself, then there is
> no problem and never has been. There are multiple cases where this has
> been done.
You could make the argument that running a commercial site
or selling an distribution is actually making money from the package.
This would be forbidden. The question would be what most people read
out of that statement and I think that selling a distribution
is considered commercial acitivities like in cases of redhat.
It is good that your intention was different,
it should be easy to clarify the statement then.
> If you take this piece of software, and sell it directly as your own
> without including the copyright header in the documentation or source
> code then there is a problem. If you sell it as a standalone utility
> (yeah right :)) then there is a problem.
Where is the difference in selling it as part of 100 packages
or as a single package? :)
> I don't see this as a major issue and will likely change it.
That is good news.
Bernhard
-- Professional Service for Free Software (intevation.net) The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org) Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org) FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)