Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> 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?
As often happens, this question turns on the definition of "free". In
that context, "free" or "no charge" is understood to mean that you
won't have to pay anything when you pick up the puppies. Among
AOL'ers, "no charge" may or may not mean anything you can get on AOL.
Among some people (like my sister [1]), MS Office is "no charge",
because *everyone* gets it from work. This is all part of context.
Licenses should not have it's meaning changed too much with context.
All I am suggesting is that we clarify the exemption. The GPL words
it the way it does for good reasons. I don't see how it adversely
affects anyone we care about, and it removes ambiguity.
> > 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).
My proposed exemption doesn't have the words "small-scale" or
"informal". You're missing the point here. You seem to be saying that
there should be a non-commercial limitation. Please try to stay on
track.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
[1] Really, I'm not kidding.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: