Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Why? You've said this several times, but without explanation. > 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. Similarly, you've said that several times, despite repeated correction: the GPL never forces distribution of source. It's just that it fails to allow distribution of binaries without source. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
