Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Brian T. Sniffen: > >> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software. >> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future >> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives >> of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy even >> if I have not distributed them to anyone. This is a fee as described >> by DFSG #1. > > This argument *must* be flawed because the same argument can show that > *any* copyleft license violates DFSG #1, which clearly is not the case.
I disagree. For example, the GPL does not impose such a fee. If I make private changes to GNU Emacs, I may keep them to myself. If FooCorp pays me to make changes to GNU Emacs, I may make such changes and distribute them, along with source, to FooCorp. I owe the FSF nothing. Only if I give a copy of the changes to the FSF must I also give them source (or a promise, yes). That is, the GPL lets me distribute (binary+source) packages, or (binary+promise) packages, but not just binaries alone. The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial developer when I distribute to some third party. The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of permission to distribute. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
