Michael Stutz wrote:
> Note that someone _can_ modify either source or object form (or both);
> for example, someone might want to take a sample from an mp3 file for
> use in a song, and not care about any source file(s).
This is a good point.
I'm still wondering if there should be a "lesser" version of this
license (like the relationship between GPL and LGPL,
only...different). This LDSL or whatever it's called would say "You
may modify / redistribute this object as long as you release your
version under this license and document your changes." It would say
nothing about source.
> You can charge whatever you like for the work itself but the source
> has to be supplied at cost. There's some ambiguity as to what that
> cost is exactly going to be in any given situation, but charging $50
> to send someone a cd-r of a wav file is probably not going to fly.
Hmmm. If I'm a consultant who charges $50 an hour for my time, then
burning a CD-R and going to post office to mail it might really cost
me $50.
Okay, so I personally only really charge $16 for my work
(proofreading), but it's the same idea. (I _wish_ I could get $50 an
hour!!)
Does this sound stupid?
> > So let's say I managed to write some software for which the source
> > was a few terrabytes of data. This source compiles to a 10 KB
> > executable. (Obviously this won't happen with real software, but I'm
> > making an analogy, bear with me here.) Could I release it under the
> > GPL by saying "I will sell the binary-only distribution for a few
> > bucks a piece, and you can redistribute as much as you want. I will
> > sell the full source distribution for $1000 apiece because it costs
> > me a lot of time and materials to copy it, and you can still
> > redistribute it as much as you want."
>
> You could do the exactly the opposite: charge $1000+ for the 10kb
> binary, and charge only cost of media and mailing for the huge
> sources. (Cost of media for that amount of info would be expensive,
> though.)
Hmm, but I can't prevent anyone from putting my binary on the
internet so I'm very unlikely to see too many of those $1000 checks.
I think it's better that, in order to avoid placing a potentially
large burden on the artist, he / she should be allowed to charge a
reasonable fee for time spent duplicating & packing the source
media. That's the "handling" part of the shipping & handling charge.
:) Negative publicity might be a sufficient incentive to keep
charges from being egregious. (Or not.)
> Just last week John Carmack was threatening legal action over a
> possible GPL violation...
I just read about the QuakeLives thing, I wonder what will happen. I
don't understand what the hell those guys were thinking.
> > > (d) A written offer for obtaining the Source stored on a physical
> > > medium, at a nominal fee adequate to cover the cost of creating and
> > > shipping the physical medium. This option is valid only if the
> > > Source is of sufficient size as to place an undue burden on the
> > > author(s) or distributor were the Source to be placed in a
> > > publically-available location such as a website.
>
> > I still wonder how "sufficient size" and "undue burden" would be
> > interpreted legally....
>
> I think maybe it doesn't even need to be included. Maybe subclause (b)
> could be changed so that it would include copies on physical media for
> transport & media costs.
sounds OK.
--PW
................ paul winkler ..................
slinkP arts: music, sound, illustration, design, etc.
A member of ARMS -----> http://www.reacharms.com
or http://www.mp3.com/arms or http://www.amp3.net/arms
personal page ----> http://www.ulster.net/~abigoo
