More random thoughts...
Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Stutz wrote:
> I think you're right about MP3, that it isn't a source form (in most
> cases; again it depends on how it was composed). The source ought to
> be the AIFF or WAV file from which the MP3 was made.
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).
> Thinking about how the GPL works, it occurs to me that you aren't
> restricted to recouping your duplication / shipping costs for the
> media. You can charge as much as you like. You just can't restrict
> further duplication of the media as long as the duplication is done
> under the same terms.
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.
> 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.)
> > And it just might happen to someone. Has it ever happened with
> > software? It seems like most software licenses are enforced by
> > "embarassment," making the violations public. I don't think anyone's
> > gone to court (yet) over an open source violation...
>
> I wonder if / when that will happen?
Just last week John Carmack was threatening legal action over a
possible GPL violation...
> > (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.
