Artistic License

[Dale]

 >>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.

>>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.

Are my assumptions correct?

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:

> David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> writes:
> >David Woolley wrote:
> >> Dale wrote:
> >>> thanks a lot for replying
> >>> is there any information on the web on the difference between
> >>> Distribution Fees and Licensing Fees, so I can educate myself?
> >>
> >> Licensing Fees are fees for permission to do something with the
> >> software.  Distribution fees are fees for physically transferring a
> >> copy of the software to you (postage, media, machine time used in
> >> making the copy, etc.).
> >
> >Note for clarity, distribution fees are only payable to the person
> >doing the distributing.  A requirement to charge them downstream and
> >make a portion payable to the original distributor would create a
> >licence fee payable by the redistributor.  No open source licence
> >would require the charging of downstream distribution fees, and I
> >don't think any copyleft open source licence would permit a
> >requirement to pay a proportion upstream.
>
> Right.  Dale, the way to think about it is that under an open source
> license, someone can certainly charge you for the physical act of
> transferring bits to you, but the rights are conveyed with the bits.
>
> The downstream recipient is only paying for the bits, not for the rights
> to use-modify-share the bits, since the recipient *already has those
> rights* under the license.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110505/ba76bc47/attachment.html>