MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: "The license may not >require a royalty or other fee for such sale." > >What is this "royalty or other fee"? I claim it is the normal >definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale >transaction. A normal definition in English law is from Dunlop v >Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847: "An act or forebearance of one party, or >the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other >is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable."
Well, firstly, the DFSG isn't a legal document. I'd argue that it should be interpreted by common usage of English rather than any legal definitions. That may make little real difference. >Consider a developer distributing an application that links with a >QPL'd work to a small group, not the general public. This developer >must promise to give works produced by them to the licensor in >exchange for the copyright licence. The promise is enforceable. The >licensing is the price for which the promise is bought. In short, the >promise is a fee! If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the right to pass on further modifications. This is plainly a Bad Thing as far as the devloper is concerned - his valuable modifications may be handed on further by the recipients. He's promised to the licensor that he'll do this. >So, this developer is required to pay a fee. Therefore, a QPL-covered >work seems not to follow DFSG 1. > >The GPL doesn't have this problem, as you are not forced to promise to >give anything to the licensor. Even if you do give something to them, >that's a simple gift. It's not a fee because it wasn't a promise you >gave in exchange for the licensing. If the licensor made you promise to give a kitten to every recipient, the fact that you don't have to provide it to the licensor wouldn't stop us from considering it a fee. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
