Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:28:04AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > You're required to give up something you might value and otherwise > > > demand compensation for, certainly, but there needs to be something > > > more than that to violate the DFSG. > > "giving up something that you might value [or] otherwise demand > > compensation for" applies equally well to cash money as it does to any > > other intangible which has value. A requirement to send an email to > > the licensor if you possibly can isn't "cash money" either, but it > > sure seems to be a fee to me. > > It's not a fee in the normal sense of the word, but it is a restriction > in the sense that if you're not able to do it (and you may well not be > able to), you're not able to make use of the priveleges you're offered > in return. That's where the analogy to a fee comes in -- it stops some > people from being able to participate. > > For a choice of venue clause though, it only stops some people from > being willing to participate; just as potentially giving up patent rights > stops Microsoft from being willing to distribute Linux.
The requirement to pet a cat, even if it is only required if convenient, also only stops some people from being willing to participate. It has also been considered non-free since the beginning of Debian. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]