On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 02:02:03AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the > QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution > to him, not promises to obey the license.
Actually it was MJ Ray who applied the promisary definition to the idea of a fee, and I was trying to see whether or not that definition really seems to hold with our interpretation of the freeness. As it is, I see that definition as conflicting with any sort of non-public domain software because it implies some sort of behavioral constraints upon the lessor (which constitute a promise). What then defines the term fee such that the GPL does not demand one where the QPL does? > There is a promise -- a contract -- which comes into existence when I > distribute modifications. I promise to hold copies of those forever > in order to supply the initial author with copies on request. So is the timeframe (i.e. forever) important? - David Nusinow