[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Contracts and licenses

Joe Moore wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>Lex Spoon wrote:
>>>Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>* A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>>>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
>>>More interestingly, the consideration might be really minor.  Suppose
>>>it says "you must email the author before distributing a modified
>>>version, provided that sending one email is free for you."  This is
>>>certainly annoying, but it's very minor and it seems to fit DFSG.
>>A requirement to notify the author, under any circumstances, is not
>>DFSG-free.  Please see the DFSG FAQ at
>>http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html , particularly section 9.
>>A requirement to notify the author via email has several problems:
> Although I'd argue that the above-mentioned clause (as qualified) is a no-op
> (if interpreted in a straightforward way).
> Sending one email is not free for me, I pay $ per month to send email,
> receive email, and browse web pages.  There may be no incremental cost
> associated with sending one email, but there is still a cost.  (Therefore
> it's not free, so I don't have to send one)

True, but a license clause that is only non-free for some people is
still non-free.  There is probably at least one person in the world who
has an Internet connection (and regularly-maintenanced computer, and
electric bill, etc) paid for by someone else, and does not place a
monetary value on their time, and therefore can send an email at no cost
to themselves.  Furthermore, most real "send me an email" clauses don't
include such a qualifier, and many actually require approval before

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: