Subscription/Service Fees

[Karsten M. Self]

on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:09:03PM +0900, David Davies (ddavies at metasys.co.jp) wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote
> 
> > 
> > On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote:
> > > It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically
> > > limit a license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or
> > > month service fee for using the software.  Perhaps I am missing
> > > something?
> > 
> > You can charge your customers whatever they will bear in order to
> > acquire the software. However, you may not prevent them from
> > distributing it to someone else for no charge. I don't see anything in
> > the OSD that *specifically* forbids usage charges. But so what?
> > Whether or not the OSD allows "usage charges" is irrelevant. All I
> > have to do is give a copy to my friend, he gives me a copy back, and I
> > don't have to pay him nor does he have to pay you. Tada!
> 
> Maybe I don't get some key part.
> 
> I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it
> clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software
> you are required to pay $x to xyz inc.

Nope.  

Violates #7:  "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to
whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
additional license by those parties".

    http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html

You can charge for subscriptions to updates (Cf:  Red Hat).  You can't
charge for ongoing execution rights.

You repeat this error several times in your post.

> There is no way to stop user A giving it to user B, and in fact that
> action is likely to be actively encouraged as it is with shareware.
> However, if the license clearly states an obligation to register and
> pay a subscription fee then users who are complying with either the
> legal or moral implication of the license will often pay.
> 
> Does making the Source Open negate this obligation in some way?  (That
> is assuming that you accept the obligation is valid in the first
> place)

The OSD is not compatible with your stated goals.

> Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very
> interesting manner.  "Since you already have our products and the
> license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us."

Support this statement with a citation and/or reference.

> > However, playing devil's advocate, you could distribute it as normal
> > closed source shareware, and only offer an Open Source license upon
> > registration...
> 
> Perhaps the issue is whether distributing software to a 3rd party
> means you have also transferred the right to use that software also.

#7.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010327/8e1611be/attachment.sig>