Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 16:35, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> > If the Peace Corps volunteer handwrites the URL for the source on the
> > back of each of the paper copies, then (s)he has fulfilled the license.
> > As an added bonus, the Ghanians don't have to do anything to fulfill the
> > distribution requirements themselves when they pass the document on.
>
> This is just like telling someone in the US that they can have the
> source for free as long as they join a $50,000/year free software
> club.
No, it isn't. This is the root of your confusion.
In my example, no one is preventing the Ghanians from applying the
instructions. They are "free" to act. In your example, you are being
prevented from gaining access to the source; the "free software club" is
violating your rights under either the GPL or my clause in a
hypothetical DFCL.
You didn't answer this question before, so now I insist: is it a fraud
to advertise "free puppies" in the newspaper even though you don't
reimburse puppy acquirers for transportation, vet, or other expenses?
If not, why not?
> This exemption is only meant to apply to small scale, informal
> sharing. Commercial distributors can just make the source available
> for the cost of media and shipping (just like Cheapbytes does).
...for a given definition of "small-scale", or "informal". Watch
O'Reilly claim in court that they're "small-scale" because of the
existence of publishing giants like Reed-Elsevier. Watch the MPAA claim
"informal" status because they don't meet some arcane government
definition of "formality" (perhaps registration as a corporation, or
profit status, or something like that).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: