Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:28:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

But the cost of disclosure of the sources to downstream recipients is also a
fee imposed by the upstream author simply by choosing the GPL or QPL. Just
because you already have a distribution channel set up with downstream does not
mean there is no fee incurred from distributing and disclosing the source and
your modifications to them.

 - David Nusinow