Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

[Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com>]

MJ Ray wrote:
> I'll let the PP answer for himself, but mention that money can be seen as
> a trick and you can read more about that view in Robert Tressell's book The
> Ragged-Trousered Philanthropist, which is PD at Gutenberg;  and also that
> local exchange trading schemes exist, but would it make something any less
> a fee if someone can trade their work as payment?

N.B. the idea that trading agreement to copyleft is a substitute for fee
payment (i.e. that the basis for copyleft licensing is a quid-pro-quo
wherein the author releases their work in exchange for a promise -- or
likelihood -- of contributions to their project) is a basic game theory
approach to understanding the economic success of the whole
free/copyleft phenomenon.

An overly broad interpretation of "fee" to include such agreements would
 not only be highly "constructivist", but it would also be
counterproductive to the success of the whole free software movement as
well as Debian within that movement.

Also, by holding up copyleft licenses like the GPL as "best practice"
examples, I believe the DFSG rules out such overly broad interpretations.

So I think the whole class of "can be considered as a fee" arguments
must be taken with a very big chunk of salt.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com