On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
Because... > > 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. Nor does the QPL. It only allows distribution of binaries if you provide source upstream - it doesn't require the source to be distributed otherwise. The only difference between the QPL and the GPL in this respect is who the source is given to. QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee. GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the recipient. You claim this is not a fee. I entirely fail to understand the difference here. In both cases I have had to pass something of value on to people I might not have wanted to pass it on to. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
