Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> You brought up promises as fees, not me.  The fees compelled by the
>> >> QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution
>> >> to him, not promises to obey the license.
>
>> > Actually it was MJ Ray who applied the promisary definition to the idea of a
>> > fee, and I was trying to see whether or not that definition really seems to
>> > hold with our interpretation of the freeness. As it is, I see that definition
>> > as conflicting with any sort of non-public domain software because it implies
>> > some sort of behavioral constraints upon the lessor (which constitute a
>> > promise). What then defines the term fee such that the GPL does not demand one
>> > where the QPL does?
>
>> A fee is a thing of value which must be given in payment for some
>> return.  That is, I must incur a cost in paying it, and the recipient
>> should benefit from it.
>
>> 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.

>> 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.

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu