Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a >>particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second >>draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still >>working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the >>DFSG. > > Choice-of-venue is discriminatory against large classes of people, those > who live far away and don't have the means to contest a suit over long > distances. If, as Sven argues, this is actually a null clause under > French law, then it's a license blemish rather than a DFSG problem, and > should be removed for clarity.
I was more looking for the clear DFSG justification against "must send changes upstream", which you explain below; thank you. >>The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I more-or-less >>agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is only a >>"royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, and >>not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the >>software to. > > Do you disagree with the definition I've advanced in earlier messages, > that a fee is something given in *exchange* for a license? I apparently just forgot it in the flood; thanks for pointing it out again. Of course, that definition would mean that DFSG1 doesn't cover a license that says you must distribute a dollar along with any copy, but that's a minor issue, and to my knowledge, no such license exists yet. I think I will go with that justification, and link to your original message with that definition; thank you. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
