spurious is correct one can redistribute gpled software for profit the diku license prohibits commercial or for profit use thus it is not osd compliant and the original text is correct the new text asserts because of this clause dikumud's license can be considered an example of copyleft open source software this is also incorrect see the following at the university of utah public license is a non free license because it does not allow commercial redistribution it also purports to restrict commercially running the software and even commercially giving consultation about it clearly fsf gnu would consider diku a non free license