MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's >> going to fly with a wider audience. > >Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice on that >aspect yet? I still suspect that modifications are of sufficient value >to be regarded as a fee.
The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow legal sense - it's written to be read by humans. I do not believe that DFSG #1's use of the word "fee" was intended to cover provision of code to others. DFSG #1 makes no mention of who the fee must be payable to. If this definition really were intended, the GPL's forced distribution of source to the recipient is just as much in violation as the QPL's requirements. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
