Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>1. DFSG: free redistribution. In the elaboration: "The license may not
>require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
>
>What is this "royalty or other fee"? I claim it is the normal
>definition of consideration in an exchange, of payment in a sale
>transaction. A normal definition in English law is from Dunlop v
>Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847: "An act or forebearance of one party, or
>the promise thereof, is the price for which the promise of the other
>is bought, and the promise thus given for value is enforceable."
Well, firstly, the DFSG isn't a legal document. I'd argue that it should
be interpreted by common usage of English rather than any legal
definitions. That may make little real difference.
>Consider a developer distributing an application that links with a
>QPL'd work to a small group, not the general public. This developer
>must promise to give works produced by them to the licensor in
>exchange for the copyright licence. The promise is enforceable. The
>licensing is the price for which the promise is bought. In short, the
>promise is a fee!
If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a
GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on
the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the
right to pass on further modifications. This is plainly a Bad Thing as
far as the devloper is concerned - his valuable modifications may be
handed on further by the recipients. He's promised to the licensor that
he'll do this.
>So, this developer is required to pay a fee. Therefore, a QPL-covered
>work seems not to follow DFSG 1.
>
>The GPL doesn't have this problem, as you are not forced to promise to
>give anything to the licensor. Even if you do give something to them,
>that's a simple gift. It's not a fee because it wasn't a promise you
>gave in exchange for the licensing.
If the licensor made you promise to give a kitten to every recipient,
the fact that you don't have to provide it to the licensor wouldn't stop
us from considering it a fee.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: