On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:43:48AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.
Fine. Let's use a non-legal, general-purpose dictionary, whose whole
mission in life is to describe the language as it is commonly used.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
2. Reward or compensation for services rendered or to be
rendered; especially, payment for professional services,
of optional amount, or fixed by custom or laws; charge;
pay; perquisite; as, the fees of lawyers and physicians;
the fees of office; clerk's fees; sheriff's fees; marriage
fees, etc.
[1913 Webster]
From WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) [wn]:
fee
n 1: a fixed charge for a privilege or for professional services
2: an interest in land capable of being inherited
v : give a tip or gratuity to in return for a service, beyond
the agreed-on compensation; "Remember to tip the waiter";
"fee the steward" [syn: {tip}, {bung}]
I see no mention of "cash", "money", "currency", "bank notes", or "legal
tender" in the above. Certainly these are all forms in which a fee may be
rendered, but the dictionary definition appears to be more general.
So, upon what grounds *now* will be defended the argument that DFSG 1's
"royalty or other fee" refers only to greenbacks?
To assert that a licensor can extract any form of compensation he wants in
exchange for a "free software" license's application to you as long as it
isn't paper money or a promissory note for same doesn't pass the Bullshit
Test.
I am saddened that I even have to think about the necessity of codifying
such a thing as the "Bullshit Test". Nevertheless, if it proves necessary,
I will advocate its inclusion in the DFSG FAQ.
Just as you ask that people not distinguish the GNU GPL's "termination
clause" from a blanket, arbitrary termination clause if there is no
practical difference, I ask you not to harp over the legal dictionary
definition of a term versus the common dictionary definition if it makes
"little real difference".
The whole *concept* behind a license that is both "free" and "public" is
that there does not have to be *any* negotiation, contact, or exchange
between the licensor and the licensees[1]. The grant of license is
unilateral. That does not mean that it is unconditional.
Either there has been a tremendous failure by the free software community
to educate its own members on fundamentals, or there is a tremendous effort
at sophistry underway.
[1] N.B.: That the MIT/X11 and UCB/BSD licenses aren't given titles with
the words "free" or "public" in them doesn't mean they aren't documents
that grant license to traffic in a work to the general public at no
charge. If you find this claim incredible, try reading the licenses.
--
G. Branden Robinson | "To be is to do" -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux | "To do is to be" -- Aristotle
branden@debian.org | "Do be do be do" -- Sinatra
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature