MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source. >> >> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all >> distributed modifications. >> >> Why do we believe in one of these but not the other? > >The second looks like a "royalty or other fee" given to the copyright >holder.
How is the first not a fee given to the recipient? "You must give a dollar to everyone you give the binaries to" certainly would be. The fact that the fee is not payable to upstream doesn't mean that it's not an upstream fee - upstream has dictated that you must provide something of value to the recipient. 2 clause BSD doesn't have this problem. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
