On Thursday 30 Dec 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > [snip] > The second scenario is that I write the software on my own time. I > own the copyright. I can sell it to the client for a fee. But here > is the catch: If I have licensed it under the GPL, the moment I sell > it to the client, I have distributed it - and hence am obliged to > give a copy of the source code to anyone who asks. So only the > client pays for it, the rest of the world gets it free. This is > impossible - the client will demand his money back - why should he > pay while his competitors are all getting it free? - this business > model will not work.
That's because your business model is based on a flawed premise: that by giving a GPL software to one person you are obliged to share it with everyone in the world. You need never ever distribute your GPL software if you don't wish to, and if you ever do you are only obliged to give the source code of the software TO THE PERSON YOU GIVE THE SOFTWARE TO, no one else. I have developed GPL software for clients, and given them the source code, and that works just fine. If they choose to further redistribute the software, they also have to follow the terms of the GPL; if they don't want to redistribute under the GPL, they have to get me to change the original licence of the software I developed, and I can then charge a fee or make a profit sharing agreement if I so choose. So with the GPL everyone wins. The client wins because she has the source code of the software and is not dependent on the original author for maintenance. The original developer wins because if the client wants to make money from selling the software the developer can ask for a cut for changing the licence. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
