eaj at ricochet.net
Tue Mar 27 22:36:19 UTC 2001
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com>:
> > 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.
> 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".
How is there an additional license required? A requirement to pay somebody
something does not imply that an additional license is required. I believe
the original poster is envisioning it simply as a clause in the (sole)
> You can charge for subscriptions to updates (Cf: Red Hat). You can't
> charge for ongoing execution rights.
Of course not. "Execution rights" are not among the exclusive rights
listed in 17 USC 106 (assuming we are talking about a copyright license
in the US), so it makes no sense to talk about granting them. A shareware
style requirement to pay for use is not a matter of granting (or not
granting) specific rights, but of imposing obligations in return for the
rights which are granted. Clearly, #7 does not apply.
More information about the License-discuss