Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here. >> >> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and >> upstream. > > Why does that result in one being a fee and the other not being a > fee?
As I posted only a few minutes ago, so you didn't see when you wrote this: A fee is a payment for a return. The upstream demanding valuables for Freedom is charging me a fee. The recipient gives me nothing, so any payments i give him are not a fee. I don't think such quibbling over shades of meaning is appropriate for as vague a document as the DFSG, though. > If I distribute under GPL 3(b) and someone then distributes that under > 3(c) I'm bound to pass on my valuable modifications to people I didn't > provide binaries to myself. How is that not a fee? Why is upstream > special? Then you chose a non-free path through the license. Not our problem. Use GPL 3(a) for distribution if you want a free license. There's a reason Debian -- and I -- distribute modified GPL'd works only under 3(a). >> In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author many more >> rights with the software than you had -- he can take it proprietary, >> and you can't. Also, no matter who you want to give those >> modifications to, you have to give that broad license to the upstream. > > Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG. I don't agree with your idea that the DFSG must describe all ways in which licenses can be non-free. The wicked are endlessly cunning. > Appeals to nebulous concept of "platonic non-freeness" will be > rejected. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the OSD than the DFSG. > Answers should cover at least 3 sides and take 10 minutes. (5 > marks). -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
