Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to >> the licensor, the license can't be free. > > For copyleft licenses, at least, the promise of future derivative > works being released with source under similar terms could quite > easily be argued to fulfill consideration.
That's only reasonable if the license requires release. Since free copylefts don't require distribution at all, much less public release, I think that would be much harder to argue. > If we take the conservative tack, and assume that all of the > restrictions or requirements are valid and legally binding and > evaluate the license from that perspective, we will have determined > whether or not the license is capable of being free, irregardless of > the outcome of a game of legal roulette. Sure, but there are simple tests which make that easier -- for example, a quick check to see whether the license permits sale of copies, distribution of derivative works, etc. These are qualities that, in general, make a license non-free. I'm proposing that a few other truths be recognized: most noticeably, that requirement for acceptance or agreement with a license is a non-free requirement for a fee. Also, that a license which restricts or compels behavior rather than granting potentially limited privileges is also non-free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
