Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 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.
No, he hasn't. The licensor's merely promised not to sue him for
doing so.
>>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.
That's right. This is why it's a good thing that the GPL doesn't
extract a promise from licensees. It's a true public license, unlike
the Q"P"L: you don't even have to be aware of it to benefit from
privileges granted by it.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: