[Open-data-census] [od-discuss] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?

• Previous message: [Open-data-census] [od-discuss] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?
• Next message: [Open-data-census] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Andrew Stott <andrew.stott at dirdigeng.com>wrote:

> 6.1(1)(b) (which allows the Licensor to charge, for goodness sake)


Perhaps I'm missing something (it is late here) but Licensors are always
allowed to charge, either as parallel distribution/dual-licensing (since
they are the Licensor/author), or simply as a condition of the initial
distribution, no?

Relevant OKD section: "The license shall not restrict any party from
*selling* or giving away the work".

Luis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-data-census/attachments/20131009/4b270703/attachment.htm>

• Previous message: [Open-data-census] [od-discuss] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?
• Next message: [Open-data-census] [CLARIFICATION REQUIRED] Can PSI Licence be considered an "open" license?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]