Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> > If there isn't a problem with requiring that the professor distribute
> > the source, then there isn't a problem whether the professor distributes
> > one copy or one thousand. Therefore, the whole volume exemption is
> > unnecessary.
>
> When I give out only a few copies, requiring source distribution adds
> significant overhead to the transaction. If I give out lots of
> copies, source distribution is an insignificant overhead. There is a
> difference.
Perhaps, but there's no evidence to say that, for example, 100 copies is
"the" threshold. There are too many other factors to consider. When
you start considering the other factors, things start getting ridiculous
("schools must distribute source once the distribution exceeds 1% of
current enrollment, businesses must distribute source if profit exceeds
15% of revenue, ...").
> > For an example of an alternative to arbitrary limits, see the example
> > clause I posted in another message in this thread.
>
> Do you mean this?
>
> > - A statement is provided in the same form as the rest of the document
> > that describes how the Source for this document may be retrieved at no
> > charge.
That was part of it, yes.
> This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically
> performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also
> keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from the GPL. I worry
> a little about new loopholes, but I don't think that they're serious.
>
> Now that I consider it, this kind of statement would be fine for me.
That's cool. The specific wording of that part of the license should be
carefully done, of course, but we're now looking at behavior we want to
prevent or require at all levels, which is the important thing.
Regarding your specific concerns: The "at no charge" part was predicated
on an understanding that this was one of three options. You can either
distribute source right then, offer to give them source for the cost
distribution, or provide a pointer to a place to get it free. So your
case should be covered by one of the two alternatives. Ditto for
"non-commercial"; it's hard to run a business with no profit. :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: