The license allows redistribution in source or binary form. The interesting sections of the license are these:
"Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the basis
of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so
on. (You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder,
but only to the computing community at large as a market that must
bear the fee.)
2. The Standard Version of the Library may be distributed as part
of a collection of software, provided no more than a reasonable
copying fee is charged for the software collection.
@Licenses team: Does this fulfill the condition for the BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group that it "MUST NOT restrict the cost of redistribution"?
That clause is ALREADY in Artistic license, which is @OSI-APPROVED. VIGRA actually looks MORE free than Artistic(-1). Some of the long clauses in Artistic were replaced with 'without restriction'.
@ulm: I think we can add VIGRA to @MISC-FREE rather than just @BINARY-REDIST. Some of the other recent additions we did might be further candidates for @MISC-FREE as well.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s):
Author: Robin H. Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
AuthorDate: 2019-04-22 15:33:57 +0000
Commit: Robin H. Johnson <email@example.com>
CommitDate: 2019-04-22 21:55:13 +0000
license_groups: add VIGRA to @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE
As discussed in #gentoo-releng on 2019/04/22 and in bug 684126.
The VIGRA license, which is based on Artistic(-1):
- permits distribution
- does not require explicit approval
- does not restrict cost of redistribution**
** The Artistic(-1) license already permits a reasonable copying fee, and is
still @OSI-APPROVED, but not @FSF-APPROVED. Artistic-2 clarifies the
language of the copying fee as "Distributor Fee", but still permits it,
and is @GPL-COMPATIBLE.
Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
profiles/license_groups | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)