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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.

That's necessary for the recipient to have Freedom with respect to the
software -- otherwise he can't modify it to suit his purposes.

> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
> distributed modifications.

The copyright holder has no rights to things he doesn't have.  He
doesn't have *access* to the modifications, so he hardly has any right
to Freedom with them.

> Why do we believe in one of these but not the other?

And, as MJ Ray said, the second is a fee and the first is not.  A gift
is not a fee.  A tax is not a fee.  A dollar dropped out of my pocket
is not a fee -- though valuable things change hands in all of those.

A fee is a payment for a good or service.  The copyright holder, when
he demands valuables from me in exchange for Freedom, charges me a
fee.  But the recipient of my modifications is doing nothing for me,
and so no payment to him is a fee.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: