Artistic License

[Dale]

>>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
licensing fees."
and :
"(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
clear

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
>> software
>>  >>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...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110505/1effac98/attachment.html>