On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 19:00, Walter Landry wrote: > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You didn't answer this question before, so now I insist: is it a fraud > > to advertise "free puppies" in the newspaper even though you don't > > reimburse puppy acquirers for transportation, vet, or other expenses? > > If not, why not? > > As often happens, this question turns on the definition of "free".
Definition games are tools of destruction, and are therefore invalid for the purposes of this discussion. > In > that context, "free" or "no charge" is understood to mean that you > won't have to pay anything when you pick up the puppies. So it's not fraud. You therefore agree that indirect costs, such as the cost of a dialup connection to the Internet, cannot be construed in the same light as your hypothetical "free software club". Thank you. > This is all part of context. > Licenses should not have it's meaning changed too much with context. That way lies madness. You're never going to be able to prevent lawyers and regulators from playing definitional games. If they can assert that a bitstream on a disk is a weapon of war on the level of a nuclear missile, they can assert anything, and there isn't much you can do about it. We need to focus on determining our intent here, not worry about how people will intentionally distort it. I doubt the latter will do any good, seeing as how we all have such little experience with legal weaseling. Regardless, there has to be an intent to distort first. > All I am suggesting is that we clarify the exemption. The GPL words > it the way it does for good reasons. I don't see how it adversely > affects anyone we care about, and it removes ambiguity. I note, for the record, that I have repeatedly asserted that the exact wording may not be the best, and that I'm looking for thought on the concepts, not the words chosen. I also note the absence of any example rewordings in the thread. > > > This exemption is only meant to apply to small scale, informal > > > sharing. Commercial distributors can just make the source available > > > for the cost of media and shipping (just like Cheapbytes does). > > > > ...for a given definition of "small-scale", or "informal". Watch > > O'Reilly claim in court that they're "small-scale" because of the > > existence of publishing giants like Reed-Elsevier. Watch the MPAA claim > > "informal" status because they don't meet some arcane government > > definition of "formality" (perhaps registration as a corporation, or > > profit status, or something like that). > > My proposed exemption doesn't have the words "small-scale" or > "informal". You're missing the point here. You seem to be saying that > there should be a non-commercial limitation. I can't even begin to figure out where this came from, and after re-reading the thread, I'm even more confused. I'll freely admit to ignorance of your proposal. So far, you've had two: arbitrary numeric limits and the "small-scale" and "informal" paragraph quoted above. Which is the correct one? Or is it something else? As for my proposal: I have nowhere said that there should be non-commercial limits on anything at all. Never. Quote me if you disagree. > Please try to stay on > track. Well, I do seem to be off track. I started out proposing an idea for a license, and now find myself in the middle of a discussion about the meaning of the words "free of charge" when talking to AOL users, and I don't appear to understand my own proposal. So, remind me: what am I allowed to talk about in this thread, again? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
