Joe Moore wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > >>Lex Spoon wrote: >> >>>Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >>>> the licensor, the license can't be free. >> >>[...] >> >>>More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor. Suppose >>>it says "you must email the author before distributing a modified >>>version, provided that sending one email is free for you." This is >>>certainly annoying, but it's very minor and it seems to fit DFSG. >> >>A requirement to notify the author, under any circumstances, is not >>DFSG-free. Please see the DFSG FAQ at >>http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html , particularly section 9. >>A requirement to notify the author via email has several problems: > > Although I'd argue that the above-mentioned clause (as qualified) is a no-op > (if interpreted in a straightforward way). > > Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email, > receive email, and browse web pages. There may be no incremental cost > associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost. (Therefore > it's not free, so I don't have to send one)
True, but a license clause that is only non-free for some people is still non-free. There is probably at least one person in the world who has an Internet connection (and regularly-maintenanced computer, and electric bill, etc) paid for by someone else, and does not place a monetary value on their time, and therefore can send an email at no cost to themselves. Furthermore, most real "send me an email" clauses don't include such a qualifier, and many actually require approval before distribution. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
