On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> For example, the QPL's demand for a permissive license for the initial > >> author is a fee. The license has value, and I may not make > >> modifications without granting it. I incur a cost, loss of control. > >> The recipient benefits greatly. > >> The GPL's requirement that I distribute source with any binaries I > >> distribute is not a fee. My distribution of source with binaries has > >> negligible cost to me, so is not a fee. > > By this reasoning, if the QPL said you were allowed to charge the author > > for the cost of sending him the source, it would be free because the > > cost to you is nominally the same as the cost in the GPL. I don't > > believe this is true. > No, because the license to those sources and the act of disclosure are > themselves of cost to me and benefit to him. Which is also true when you distribute them with your binaries. But: > >> The GPL's requirement that I give a license to any recipient does have > >> a cost to me, but I receive no benefit from it, so it is not a fee. > > Crossed pronouns here? You *do* receive benefit from it -- you receive > > the license. The reason it's not a fee is that it's not paid to the > > licensor, not because you don't get anything in exchange for it. > I am *compensated* for it. That's part of what's needed for a fee. > It is a crossed pronoun, though: the licensor doesn't receive any > benefit from it, which is what I meant to say. Thanks for catching that. Ok, then we're in agreement. Because the recipient of the binaries is an arbitrary third party, of *your* choosing, giving them the sources as well as a requirement of distribution is not (necessarily) of benefit to either the licensor or the distributor who gave the source to you. Therefore, it is not a fee because it was not given in *exchange* for the license. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature