[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:29:08PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Choice of venue clauses can short circuit the normal determination of
> jurisdiction in civil cases in some jurisdictions in some cases. In
> Since this is giving up a right normally enjoyed in exchange for the
> ability to use or modify a work, it appears be a fee, and as such
> fails DFSG 1.

That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines "fee" as
"something involving the transfer of money". If it isn't, then the GPL
is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries
from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the
right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have,
which could be considered to be a fee.

Hey, if we're going to accept leaps of logic, I can do one too.

> Finally, by placing works under licenses with such clauses into
> non-free, we advise people that they should be examining the license
> more closely before deciding whether or not they should (or can) use
> the software.

Everyone who really cares about anything should do that anyway.

Shaw's Principle:
	Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
	want to use it.

Reply to: