Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
>wrote:
>> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
>> going to fly with a wider audience.
>
>Funny to us possibly, but did anyone post better legal advice on that
>aspect yet? I still suspect that modifications are of sufficient value
>to be regarded as a fee.
The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a
narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
legal sense - it's written to be read by humans. I do not believe that
DFSG #1's use of the word "fee" was intended to cover provision of code
to others.
DFSG #1 makes no mention of who the fee must be payable to. If this
definition really were intended, the GPL's forced distribution of source
to the recipient is just as much in violation as the QPL's requirements.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: