* Brian Thomas Sniffen: > 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.
Of course, copyleft does not impose a fee in the sense of DFSG #1. > The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial > developer when I distribute to some third party. DFSG #1 does not talk about who receives the fee. If the license required to pay $1 to the receiver of each copy, this would clearly be a fee and a violation of that clause, but the original author would not benefit from it. > The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of > permission to distribute. And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the grants of permission to modify? As you can see, your argument works both ways. 8-) (I'm not sure if the QPL pass all the other DFSG clauses, though.)
