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

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] 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.

However, that is neither the situation being discussed (someone possibly
agreeing to travel to or employ a representative in a particular place),
nor an accurate description of copyleft (contributing changes back to
the main project is a good thing to do, but it must not be required).

Isn't it interesting that Anansi Spaceworks "is to provide the training
and resources that will be needed for a Free future in Space" while my
main company is a cooperative of webmasters, sysadmins and developers?
Maybe I'm not quite totally clueless on the economic aspects of sharing
and the free/copyleft phenomenon, although I'm told that I'm sometimes
a bit slow to stop correcting misconceptions on project mailing lists
and that lowers my earnings.  Oh, wait...

> 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.

Now "constructivist" merits "scare" quotes...  One faction argues that
all the tests must be grounded in the DFSG, while another argues that
grounding things in the DFSG is somehow "scary".  Nice dilemma.  I think
I'll keep linking back to the DFSG when obviously helpful.

So how would one define fee to exclude this, but include all other cases
like pickle-passing and pet-a-cat?  I think it's impossible because it's
absurd, but it only takes one counter-example to demonstrate possibility.

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

The GPL does not itself require me to travel or send someone to a venue.
The GPL does not force contributions back to the upstream project.
These are features, not bugs.

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

I think the whole class of arguments vaguely appealing to authority -
like citing the GPL's mention in the DFSG must mean all copyleft licences
must be accepted - need to be taken with a veritable hill of salt.

Regards,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct