Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>[Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another >>subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the >>subthread rules.] >> >>In Message-ID <[🔎] 20040723220245.GB21486@pegasos>, Sven Luther wrote: >> >>>If a licence says each time you use the software you have to write a >>>postcard to a sick child, or only do it one time when you first get >>>hold of it, this is a cost or fee or whatever that you have to pay >>>when you install the software, and you can't legally work around it. >> >>OK. First of all, I assume this would also apply if the postcard must >>be sent to the upstream author, and if sending the postcard was required >>for distribution, rather than use; would you agree? Furthermore, if >>sending the postcard was not required automatically, but only if the >>author asks for one, this would still apply, right? >> >>If so, then how is "if you distribute a work that links to mine, you >>must send me a postcard" a fee, but "if your work links to mine, you >>must send me your work" not a fee? > > In the cost involved. If you send a postcard, it is costing something to you, > even if it is a symbolic cost, and thus does constitute a fee (and we are > against it because it can be an inconvenience in the first place, not because > of the symbolic cost). > > Now, if i have to send you my work upon request, first i can charge for the > cost of the source distribution, as per 6a. Second, and this is still a Only if 6a applies; 6a only applies when someone who has a binary requests source, which is not the case for your distribution to the initial developer. > dubious interpretation i would like clarification about from Trolltech, > there is nothing saying i have to send upstream the binary for free. In this > interpretation, clause 6c is merely saying that i have no right to deny a sale > of the linked software to upstream. > > I think this is a doubtfull interpretation, since nothing is said of the > price, and setting a really high price would void the possibility of upstream > to get the software. The annotation also doesn't clarify it here : I would tend to agree. It makes no sense for it to be possible to charge upstream an exorbitant fee to get the software. I don't think "you must supply one" implies that you may charge for it. > This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we > get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we > are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know > we can release the code to the public. > > So, this may be a good point to go to my upstream and argue for the dropping > of 6c altogether, altough i personally feel it is a nice touch, and would be a > good thing for the furtherance of free software. I think the intent behind it is reasonable, but it just goes too far. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature