On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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.
But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or QPL. Just because you already have a distribution channel set up with downstream does not mean there is no fee incurred from distributing and disclosing the source and your modifications to them. - David Nusinow
