Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
>>wrote:
>>> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
>>> going to fly with a wider audience.
>>
>>Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice on that
>>aspect yet? I still suspect that modifications are of sufficient value
>>to be regarded as a fee.
>
> The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a
> narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
> legal sense - it's written to be read by humans. I do not believe that
> DFSG #1's use of the word "fee" was intended to cover provision of code
> to others.
Why? You've said this several times, but without explanation.
> DFSG #1 makes no mention of who the fee must be payable to. If this
> definition really were intended, the GPL's forced distribution of source
> to the recipient is just as much in violation as the QPL's requirements.
Similarly, you've said that several times, despite repeated
correction: the GPL never forces distribution of source. It's just
that it fails to allow distribution of binaries without source.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: