Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
That is why I am trying to constrain the meaning with a revised wording. > > 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. In that context. > 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. It depends on the context. I'm just trying to remove that dependence. Free is an ambiguous term. > > > > 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? I have abandoned the arbitrary numeric limit. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. My current proposal is a minor modification of your proposal. You had a few conditions that looked a lot like the GPL. I suggested modifying the last one. To quote from an earlier exchange: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - A statement is provided in the same form as the rest of the document > > > that describes how the Source for this document may be retrieved at no > > > charge. > > > > This should probably be "a charge no more than the cost of physically > > performing source distribution" rather than "no charge". I would also > > keep the noncommercial distribution stipulation from the GPL. I worry > > a little about new loopholes, but I don't think that they're serious. > > > > Now that I consider it, this kind of statement would be fine for me. So I consider my proposal a minor clarification of your proposal. > 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. I was just responding to your seemingly anti-corporate comments about MPAA and O'Reilly. > > 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? I thought we were talking about the best way to allow informal, small scale sharing. To recap, I suggested a 100 copy in 30 day limit. Lots of people didn't like it, for good reasons. Eventually, you suggested something that I mostly agreed with. I suggested a minor modification of that. That modification is what we've been discussing for the last 10 emails or so. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]