On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 02:38:46AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-06-30 23:05:08 +0100 Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> > wrote: > > >suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would > >otherwise be legal is non-free by definition. > > I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: Gosh, that could be a real liability, given the frothy types who already accuse members of our project of trying to be "holier than Stallman"[1] and of being "fringe fanatics"[2]. On a more serious note, thanks for pointing that out. The unfortunate GFDL situation has done a lot to obscure the very great deal that Debian and the FSF have in common. > IIRC, if it requires a contract to be formed, there needs to be some > sort of consideration from licensee to licensor in exchange for the > permissions. That's true as far as I understand U.S. contract law, which isn't very. > Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and therefore this test > would be a simple illustration of DFSG 1? I think so. Let's review the legal meaning of "consideration". From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]: CONSIDERATION, contracts. A compensation which is paid, or all inconvenience suffered by the, party from whom it proceeds. Or it is the reason which moves the contracting party to enter into the contract. 2 Bl. Com. 443. Viner defines it to be a cause or occasion meritorious, requiring a mutual recompense in deed or in law. Abr. tit. Consideration, A. A consideration of some sort or other, is so absolutely necessary to the forming a good contract, that a nudum pactum, or an agreement to do or to pay any thing on one side, without any compensation to the other, is totally void in law, and a man cannot be compelled to perform it. Dr. & Stud. d. 2, c. 24 3 Call, R. 439 7 Conn. 57; 1 Stew. R. 51 5 Mass. 301 4 John. R. 235; C. Yerg. 418; Cooke, R. 467; 6 Halst. R. 174; 4 Munf. R. 95. But contracts under seal are valid without a consideration; or, perhaps, more properly speaking, every bond imports in itself a sufficient consideration, though none be mentioned. 11 Serg. & R. 107. Negotiable instruments, as bills of exchange and promissory notes, carry with them prima facie evidence of consideration. 2 Bl. Com. 445. 3. The consideration must be some benefit to the party by whom the promise is made, or to a third person at his instance; or some detriment sustained at the instance of the party promising, by the party in whose favor the promise is made. 4 East, 455;1 Taunt. 523 Chitty on Contr. 7 Dr. & Stu. 179; 1 Selw. N. P. 39, 40; 2 pet. 182 1 Litt. 123; 3 John. 100; 6 Mass. 58 2 Bibb. 30; 2 J. J. Marsh. 222; 5 Cranch, 142, 150 2 N. H. Rep. 97 Wright, It. 660; 14 John. R. 466 13 S. & R. 29 3 M. Gr. & Sc. 321. > >We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat > >Test" > >or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) > >holder > >does not get to make up his or her own laws? > > I have been referring to these things as "enforcement-by-copyright". > Maybe it's the "Private Laws Test"? I still like "Dictator Test". Doesn't a Dictator get to make up his own laws? [1] Message-id: <20040408031603.GC10452@taz.net.au> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00019.html [2] Message-id: <20040428045520.GA10922@thunk.org> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00205.html -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a branden@debian.org | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature