David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the >> QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution >> to him, not promises to obey the license. > > Actually it was MJ Ray who applied the promisary definition to the idea of a > fee, and I was trying to see whether or not that definition really seems to > hold with our interpretation of the freeness. As it is, I see that definition > as conflicting with any sort of non-public domain software because it implies > some sort of behavioral constraints upon the lessor (which constitute a > promise). What then defines the term fee such that the GPL does not demand one > where the QPL does?
A fee is a thing of value which must be given in payment for some return. That is, I must incur a cost in paying it, and the recipient should benefit from it. For example, the QPL's demand for a permissive license for the initial author is a fee. The license has value, and I may not make modifications without granting it. I incur a cost, loss of control. The recipient benefits greatly. The GPL's requirement that I distribute source with any binaries I distribute is not a fee. My distribution of source with binaries has negligible cost to me, so is not a fee. The GPL's requirement that I give a license to any recipient does have a cost to me, but I receive no benefit from it, so it is not a fee. >> There is a promise -- a contract -- which comes into existence when I >> distribute modifications. I promise to hold copies of those forever >> in order to supply the initial author with copies on request. > > So is the timeframe (i.e. forever) important? Well, somewhat. After all, a requirement that I retain all modifications for three milliseconds would be so negligable as to be Free. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
