Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 email@example.com