Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Why not some middle ground? Its not as if its an either/or proposition. 

True enough. I was merely implying that experience may favour my
statement, rather than not.

> Either you give away the software totally free of charge & restriction 
> or you lock it up in a vault and insist on millions for it? Why not do 
> something that says "Here is this software in source code form. You can 
> use it at home or on your job. You can modify it if you like. You can 
> pass it on to your friends. You can build something bigger using it and 
> I won't make you adopt my license for your software. What you *can't* do 
> with my software is sell it for profit or incorporate it into some other 
> product/service wherein it adds value. Not unless you compensate me."

That indeed is a possibility.

Which is pretty much (note the qualifier) what the GPL does. It does not
permit someone else from profiting from your work, except enough to
cover distribution costs (and I'll add that IANAL).

Obviously there are different levels of freedom, ranging from public
domain all the way back to Redmond.

The problem with the model you present is that there are complications
like:

  "Not unless you compensate me."

Well, then, "how much?". "Under what terms?" "For how long?" "Can I
compete?"  "Can I sell it to 3rd parties? To terrorists? To the
military?" "Can I modify and redistribute it?"

And, "are these terms permissible 'here'?", whereever here is?

How is the compensation made? Beer? Pay Pal? VISA? Money Order.
Cash: what currency?

What delivery method?  How quickly?  What are the penalties for
paying late?

Invoices?  Do you have an accounts receivable department?

Do you have to charge and collect tax(es)? GST? VAT?

> We could worry about how to collect the compensation as a separate 
> matter, but it seems reasonable to me that the above form of license 
> would provide all the good things you identified for the GPL without 
> depriving you of the right to get compensated if you happen to release 
> the next Linux to the next RedHat.
> 
> MDC

Sure you can decide not to discuss "collection", but it too is now
part of the whole process and concern. It cannot be ignored. It can
in the GPL case, because there is no collection in that process.

All I am saying is that yes, anyone can license the software and go
to the hassle of collecting fees if he chooses to do so. But as soon
as you cross that line, your buy yourself and your clients a lot of
added "hassle".

For small things, like the "tar" command that we all take for granted
under Linux, CYGWIN etc., it is simply nowhere near worth the effort.

OTOH, if the FSF were to set up a contributors registry, and they
worked out some fair source code metric, then maybe a different
situation could be achieved. However, I doubt that this effort
would be worth anyone's trouble.

I seem to recall that the blank tape/CD tax that they're collecting
in Canada (US?) to renumerate the music artists, is in a similar
pickle. The registration process is huge and complex. And which
artists deserve more than the others. Heck, I should get a piece
of that too, since my _software_ (not music) is floating around on
CD distributions all over the place. Why should just musicians get
this piece of the pie?!?!

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>
>> Compare this to:
>>
>> I create something amazing useful (at least to some people), but
>> I license it under terms like M$ EULA. Well, this will just drive
>> many people using it for personal use into piracy, or will just
>> eliminate it being used generally.
>>
>> What do I get out of this?  Maybe a few license fees.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg