Must publish vs. must supply

[Abe Kornelis]

> Abe Kornelis scripsit:
>
> >       Not wanting to compromise
> >       the relation with their software supplier being one fairly
> >       good reason, habitual secretiveness another one,
> >       and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable
> >       by their own customers as yet another (very good)
> >       reason for that. Thus, a selected group effectively
> >       does not really differ from a closed group.
>
> In a purely commercial environment, perhaps not.  People do, in fact, pass
> software to their friends in utter disregard for any licensing features,
> however.
--> I know. That's not my point - though I seem to have been unclear
      about this. I *do* want to share my software with all those who might
      enjoy it, even though there are not that many people who toy around
      with a mainframe for their own fun. The software is the left-overs of
      a failed project. I'd really love to see it used by others - but when
      large software companies join in I'd like to recover some of my money.
      So they can have the software for free only if they either yield their
      software to the public (not just to their customers who'd keep it
      locked up just as well)  or they acquire a different (paid) license
      for using my software. Isn't that the basis of all dual-licensing
      strategies?
      So, if John passes a copy to Bob - that's fine with me.
      And if derived software is being passed along too, I wouldn't
      think of bothering about legal issues - even when it would formally
      be a breach of the license terms. But as soon as professional
      software vendors get into the picture things become quite
      different, since they tend *not* to share their software with
      us. If they want my software for free, they'll have to abide by
      the same rules, i.e. share their software with the rest of us.
      This can be achieved only if they are required to publish to the
      public - because the intended recipients of their software will be
      extremely unlikely to pass the software on, thus effectively
      shielding the software from the public - which is precisely
      counter to my intentions.

> > --> That would all be quite ok, except that I would like to see
> >        any changes that are distributed at all being made available
> >        to the public. How this is to be done, is a choice you can
> >        make yourself - either hand it to me or publish it on the web.
>
> I would like to see it too.  The question you must ask yourself is
> whether you feel strongly enough about it to be willing to use legal
> force to compel that result.
--> If needs be: yes!

Kind regards, Abe.



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3