Licensing question

[Mark James]

On 02/27/10 04:29, John Cowan wrote:
> Mark James scripsit:
>
>    
>> Clayton, that's similar to the licence I use at Rails Wheels:
>>      
> Your licenses don't seem to be readily available from your site,
> but the prima facie objections that occur to me are:
>    

John, a sample licence is here:

http://railswheels.com/site/licence_text/SAMPLE_PACKAGE_LICENCE.txt

>    
>> - Like OSS, source is available, and can be freely redistributed and
>> modified, as long as recipients are informed that they have to purchase
>> a licence from the original author if and when they make production
>> use of either the software or a derived version.
>>      
> 1) Suppose Alice obtains the code from you, and Bob obtains it from Alice.
> It's not clear on what legal theory you purport to restrict Bob, who is
> not in privity of contract with you, from doing whatever copyright law
> allows with the code.  Even if you require Alice to contract that she
> will contract with Bob to limit his uses, I gravely doubt whether such
> a restriction can be imposed *in infinitum*.
>    

Yes, Alice is bound by a distribution condition to only
deliver the software to Bob after obtaining Bob's
agreement to all the licence terms. Just like a chain
of digital logic, there is no dilution if the signal is
reconditioned at each step.

> This may sound the same as one of the common objections to the GPL.
> But note that the GPL only limits copying and distribution, rights
> reserved to the copyright owner.  It does not apply to use, much less
> apply selectively to some uses and not others.
>
> 2) If the licensor becomes inaccessible or ceases to exist, the code
> becomes useless.
>    

That's a good point John. I suppose it behoves any business to
have a succession plan -- even OSS vendors need to prevent their
heirs fiddling with their licences in undesirable ways.

It would be sensible to add a licence condition that waived
licence fees during any period where means of payment has been
absent for a particular length of time.


>> - The original author can grant contributors and forkers free licences or
>> revenue shares.
>>      
> 3) The right to fork *against* the will of the copyright owner is highly valued.
> Without it, there probably would be no X Windows on free Unix-like systems today.
>    

The standard Rails Wheels licence allows packages to be forked
against one's will, as long as the forker abides by the licence
terms when re-distributing. This usually means that the forked
package will be listed on Rails Wheels, with prices and revenue
share set so the original author gets at least what they requested.

Of course the copyright holder can at their discretion add
licence terms to restrict this.

>    
>> There needs to be a way to fund open software so that it can be
>> more than just a side-line or a path to a proprietary software job,
>> and doesn't rely on pan-handling, advertising, or the freemium model
>> (charging for closed documentation, support, or components).
>>      
> What for?  People who buy soap generally pay only the cost of manufacture,
> the cost of advertising it, and a hair more.  Yet Procter&  Gamble is
> not a failing company, and it does not find it necessary to apply use
> restrictions on what you can do with your soap.
>    

Procter & Gamble make their money by selling soap at a price
that each local market will bear. They don't give it away to most
and try to charge big bucks to a few for unique shapes and scents,
nor beg for donations, only sell lathering instructions and
custom soap holders, or put Coke logos on their boxes.

Just like this, a Rails Wheels licence doesn't restrict
recipients, other than requiring them to buy the software.

The smaller marginal cost of software shouldn't necessarily
invalidate this business model.

Mark