Re: Contracts and licenses
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Contracts and licenses
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:16:26 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <bVy7OD.A.be._xX4AB@murphy> <40E1826C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20040629183907.GB92129@stack.nl> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1BfQss-0000UJemail@example.com>
Lex Spoon wrote:
>> * A consideration: if the license document specifies consideration to
>> the licensor, the license can't be free.
> Certainly it's a problem if the consideration is sending $1000 to the
> author. However, DFSG1 says merely that you cannot charge a royalty or
> fee; it does not say that you must require nothing at all, if I am
> reading it correctly. Consider two cases where a required consideration
> might still leave the license agreement being free.
> First, the consideration may be something completely acceptible for a
> free software license, e.g. "you will include source code with any
> distribution of the program." This may be less trivial than it sounds:
> the agreement may grant you full rights but then say you are obligated
> not to use them all.
This should be considered as a restriction on the grant of rights to
distribute the program. If you had rights to distribute the program
binary-only for other reasons separate from the license (say, a different
license), and this license took those rights away, this would *not* be a
For instance, consider a GPL-licensed work where the copyright holder offers
licenses to use the program without source for a fee. I should certainly
be able to use the proprietary license from the copyright holder for one
project and the GPL for another. If the GPL contained such a requirement
and it wasn't a restriction on the grant of rights, but rather an *actual*
consideration, this would be impossible. Get the picture?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.