At 4:36 PM +0200 on 7/13/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>But it applies to the mom-and-pop shop, too. It's not only huge companies
>>that are stuck with that clause: A small one-man company would have to have
>>a spearate set of source code CD's pressed -- even if they were only
>>pressing a thouysand program CD's. It'd be quite expensive, and very
>>annoying. And there is, of course, the problem of defining "at cost". Does
>>that include overhead? If not, small distributers are screwed. If so, how
>>do you know how many will be ordered, in order to distribute the overhead?
>
>Anthony,
>
> with a number like 50 CDs they could burn them.
Quite expensivly, I might add. CD burns are normally in the thousands.
>And very likely, the
>mom-and-pop shop would need to ship even less CDs. Or they would simply put
>the source on the CD along with the binary, maybe in a subfolder.
Could. But if the CD is full, they're not going to want to press a sperate
CD for it. Doubles the cost. Also, if they put a myserious folder full of
funny text files (as they would appear to the average user), they're going
to get their tech support people bombed with questions: "What's the
`source' folder for?"
>
>>Mis use is always fairly easy. It's just a matter of do we want to police
>>it? If we go with something like the Artistic, we won't have to: It allows
>>commercial distribution.
>
>I don't have time to run after every mis-use. I think furthering Open
>Source is worth having someone else sell it. But I don't want the sources
>to be sold for money.
I don't think the Artistic allows the sources to be sold for money. And
even if it did, let's imagine average programmer:
"Hmmm.... I can download this from opencard.org for free or I can
pay $30 to buy it from Joe..."
Well, so long as the programmer is a capitalist... (sorry, could not resist)
