Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> 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. > > By this reasoning, if the QPL said you were allowed to charge the author > for the cost of sending him the source, it would be free because the > cost to you is nominally the same as the cost in the GPL. I don't > believe this is true.
No, because the license to those sources and the act of disclosure are themselves of cost to me and benefit to him. >> 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. > > Crossed pronouns here? You *do* receive benefit from it -- you receive > the license. The reason it's not a fee is that it's not paid to the > licensor, not because you don't get anything in exchange for it. I am *compensated* for it. That's part of what's needed for a fee. It is a crossed pronoun, though: the licensor doesn't receive any benefit from it, which is what I meant to say. Thanks for catching that. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
