netxe456 at gmail.com
Thu May 5 10:38:37 UTC 2011
>>I don't know the details of the artistic licence, but the GPL certainly
allows a profit on >>the download and support fees.
Artistic states :
"Distributor Fee means any fee that you charge for Distributing this Package
or providing support for this Package to another party. It does not mean
"(2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the Standard
Version of this Package in any medium without restriction, either gratis or
for a Distributor Fee, provided that you duplicate all of the original
copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At your discretion, such
verbatim copies may or may not include a Compiled form of the Package."
it comes down to what can be considered License and what Distribution fee.
>>"You would probably have to only make the file downloadable after payment
had been >>offered, otherwise it might be confused with a licence fee."
So if I set up a site and sell the package how can I be sure that I am only
charging for a Distribution fee? I see that the distinction is not that
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> >>someone can certainly charge you for the physical act of transferring
>> bits to you,
>> So if I get it right,this means that if I distribute the source or binary
>> through the internet by allowing users to download it,since it does not cost
>> me anything to convey a copy to them,I cannot charge any distribution fees.
> It does cost you. You have to pay for the server and your time in making
> the software available also has a cost. You would probably have to only
> make the file downloadable after payment had been offered, otherwise it
> might be confused with a licence fee.
>> >>Licensing Fees are fees for permission to do something with the
>> >>The downstream recipient is only paying for the bits, not for the
>> rights to use
>> and furthermore if I allow users to download the binary/.exe with the
>> compiled/runnable application I cannot charge them for profit,say $5 per
>> download, since under the Artistic Licence I can only charge for
>> distribution fees, not for using the application.
> I don't know the details of the artistic licence, but the GPL certainly
> allows a profit on the download and support fees. The basic limit to this
> is that recipients can redistribute and undercut you if you set an unfairly
> high price. Red Hat make large profits without charging any copyright
> licence fees.
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss