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

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

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise
> > > demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something
> > > more than that to violate the DFSG.
> > "giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand
> > compensation for" applies equally well to cash money as it does to any
> > other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to
> > the licensor if you possibly can isn't "cash money" either, but it
> > sure seems to be a fee to me.
> It's not a fee in the normal sense of the word, but it is a restriction
> in the sense that if you're not able to do it (and you may well not be
> able to), you're not able to make use of the priveleges you're offered
> in return. That's where the analogy to a fee comes in -- it stops some
> people from being able to participate.
> For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from
> being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights
> stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux.

The requirement to pet a cat, even if it is only required if
convenient, also only stops some people from being willing to
participate.  It has also been considered non-free since the beginning
of Debian.

Walter Landry

Reply to: