Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 16:41, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 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. :-)
Well, to get back to the hypothetical schoolkids in Ghana, I doubt
that there is any way that they could get anything like that for "no
charge". It's not like they can just surf over to www.debian.org to
satisfy all of their free content needs. I can get things for "free"
because I've already paid for the infrastructure. The infrastructure
(including my computer) depreciates every time I use it, so it isn't
really free either. It is just that the costs are not directly tied
to what I'm getting.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: