Re: ADCL

[Al Christians <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com>]

"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> 
> Of course, I agree. There are several interesting differences between
> software and other copyrightable items. Object-oriented design and 
> large libraries can result in a product using only a small amount of 
> a developer's creation. The royalties should be based on what is 
> linked. Run-time binding is beyond me. 

As royalties that depend on how smart the linker is are beyond my ken.

The simplest would be for the author to puplich a flat $ amount per copy
for commercial use instead of the percent based on SLOC.  Do you really 
want me to just pad my SLOC count to reduce your royalty?  This public 
license with fixed royalty per copy works for music.  With a license 
offering based on flat fee per copy sold, the author can at least take a 
guess at how much advantage his package offers in comparison to whatever 
the competition (commercial, free, write it myself) is, and a whole
lot of complicated math and what-if questions are cleanly avoided.

The idea (that Ada promoters should promote, I think) is that software 
parts should to embody the same positive qualities that work for 
hardware parts (in reliability, in buy-vs-build comparisons, and in 
ease of interconnection), and pricing  accordingly would strengthen that 
perception.


Al