Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 19:00, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> > > 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".
>
> Definition games are tools of destruction
That is why I am trying to constrain the meaning with a revised wording.
> > 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.
>
> So it's not fraud.
In that context.
> You therefore agree that indirect costs, such as the cost of a
> dialup connection to the Internet, cannot be construed in the same
> light as your hypothetical "free software club". Thank you.
It depends on the context. I'm just trying to remove that dependence.
Free is an ambiguous term.
> > > > 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.
>
> I can't even begin to figure out where this came from, and after
> re-reading the thread, I'm even more confused.
>
> I'll freely admit to ignorance of your proposal. So far, you've had
> two: arbitrary numeric limits and the "small-scale" and "informal"
> paragraph quoted above. Which is the correct one? Or is it something
> else?
I have abandoned the arbitrary numeric limit. I'm sorry if I didn't
make that clear. My current proposal is a minor modification of your
proposal. You had a few conditions that looked a lot like the GPL. I
suggested modifying the last one. To quote from an earlier exchange:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> > > - 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.
> >
> > 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.
So I consider my proposal a minor clarification of your proposal.
> As for my proposal: I have nowhere said that there should be
> non-commercial limits on anything at all. Never. Quote me if you
> disagree.
I was just responding to your seemingly anti-corporate comments about
MPAA and O'Reilly.
> > Please try to stay on track.
>
> Well, I do seem to be off track. I started out proposing an idea for a
> license, and now find myself in the middle of a discussion about the
> meaning of the words "free of charge" when talking to AOL users, and I
> don't appear to understand my own proposal.
>
> So, remind me: what am I allowed to talk about in this thread, again?
I thought we were talking about the best way to allow informal, small
scale sharing. To recap, I suggested a 100 copy in 30 day limit.
Lots of people didn't like it, for good reasons. Eventually, you
suggested something that I mostly agreed with. I suggested a minor
modification of that. That modification is what we've been discussing
for the last 10 emails or so.
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: