"Lex Spoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > 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. > > Aside from circular reasoning, why is this non-free? It costs nothing > to send it, and it does nothing to get in the way of the spirit of DFSG > which IMHO is all about having the source and being able to use it > freely.
It's a fee. >> Furthermore, most real "send me an email" clauses don't >> include such a qualifier, and many actually require approval before >> distribution. > > Granted. They are probably intended to be no-cost requirements, though, > and so I did my best to patch together one that will de no-cost even if > you are on a desert island or connect to the Internet via a network of > drum-beating monkeys. I suspect a real lawyer could do a good job of > it, even if I botched it somehow. I don't think so: either it doesn't require me to send an e-mail, or in doing so is non-free. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
