On 2004-07-13 22:39:36 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] 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.
The idea of something of value as a fee is fairly well-known and in
common language phrases. The idea of modifications as having value may
well be a legal concept, but seem quite a common one in the current
copyright climate.
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.
Maybe not, but it seems to fit pretty well. I'd be interested to hear
from the "early DFSG experts" again.
DFSG #1 makes no mention of who the fee must be payable to. [...]
Aren't royalties normally paid to the copyright holder? The phrase is
"royalty or other fee" after all. Does it matter whether the royalty
or other fee is $50, GBP200-worth of work or joint adoption of your
first-born?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
