Paul Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
This "lesser" version would be similar to the "freeware" software in
the DOS world: no access to the source, but permission is granted to
copy and modify the published form of the work.
Here's a summary of my thoughts on this:
- Any work will always have a "source" form or source data; exactly
what that is depends on the type of work and how it was composed;
- Making an authoritative "source" available is going to be necessary,
for any kind of copyleft to work;
- But it should be done in such a way so that it isn't a great burden
for a non-commercial party.
Sometimes the source and object forms will be the same; sometimes,
you'll have a source and no object form. In most cases it's going to
be as easy or easier to publish the source as it will be to publish
a performable object form. (A Python music script vs. a sound
recording file.)
But it won't always be easier or as easy to release the source, and
it's these cases -- where the source is much larger than its object
form -- that we have to address.
In your example from an earlier post, the voluminous multitrack data
before mixdown and conversion clearly seems to be the source. There
might be an incentive on the author's part to keep it small enough to
fit the standard storage media, but this isn't different than making
songs short enough to fit a 7", or "albums" of music, just long enough
to fill a CD or 12" vinyl record.
Most people will probably only be interested in sampling the object
form of these works, anyway (which is why its necessary to make sure
that both source and object can be modified). So demand for source
might be low -- but it has to be available for study and use.
Would making the source available at a fair cost for transportation and
media be an acceptable answer?
> 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!!)
Some "handling" is probably to be expected -- but it should always be
within some reasonable limit, whatever the acceptable norm is. It will
vary depending on the situation -- a $19 cd-r could certainly be
possible, but if it were from a music label, say, who were selling
audio CDs for profit at $7 postpaid, even $8 for the source disc might
be suspect.
> > 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.
But if you build a brand (for whatever it is you or your company or
organization publishes), maybe you could charge $50 a unit, packaged
in a nice box and maybe with free support and a free t-shirt (or red
hat. ;)
Cheap*Bytes sell a lot of $4.99 Red Hat CDs for people who don't need
the box, manual, and installation support -- but Red Hat sell a lot of
those $49.99 Red Hat CDs, too.
You could also do what the FSF does and solicit patrons, which is
especially appropriate for artists: offer a custom "deluxe
distribution" of your work, in both source and object form.
http://www.gnu.org/order/deluxe.html
