Nonstandard License in PPA -- SoulFu

[Daniel Elstner]

Hi,

Am Montag, den 12.11.2007, 21:34 +0000 schrieb Terence Simpson:
   
> The quotes are on "sound" not free, ie: it tries to look like a free
> license, even though it may not be.

Oops, looks like I got so worked up about this stupid license that I
misread your mail. Sorry. I hate it when that happens. Anyway, the cause
of my exasperation was the license text itself, and wasn't supposed to
be directed at you.

Am Montag, den 12.11.2007, 16:47 -0600 schrieb Justin Dugger:

> On Nov 12, 2007 10:42 AM, Daniel Elstner <daniel.kitta at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > In fact, I wonder if it's actually valid to demand that no charges may
> > be claimed for distribution by third parties -- not even for the media.
> > I don't think it's even possible to avoid that "money changes hands" at
> > least indirectly.
> 
> I'm sure it's valid -- without permission they have no rights at all
> to distribute.

Sure, but demanding that the expenses of distributing the software have
to be covered solely by the distributor amounts to paying the copyright
holder by doing charity work. Which is intentional, I guess. But money
is involved.

This is my own "philosophical" view of the matter though, which of
course has no bearing on what the law actually says. It's unlikely to
closely mirror my personal convictions. :)

> It's just not nice, ironically.

Indeed it isn't. It isn't nice to *force* people to be nice. Demanding
an oath in exchange for the right to use some software is just gross.

> 2) The no money clause violates the redistribution requirements [1]

That's what I expected. Although I'd still be interested what copyright
or contract law has to say on the matter. It's likely to be different
depending on where you live, though.

Anyway, this is going off-topic now. Thanks for the interesting
discussion.

Cheers,
--Daniel