Roy wrote: >Oh dear here we go again. >>I have two proposals for a compromise, that take the commercial needs of >>Jochen Merz and Roy Wood into account: >> >>Proposal 1: >> >>Keep the "appointed resellers". Make sure that nobody can get their >>support, without purchasing the binary from them! E.g. this could be done >>by registering the users who purchased it. This way, everybody who wants >>their support and handbooks, is forced to pay. The income for the >>resellers for their support is then secured. But also allow the free >>distribution of executables again (first "license"), so non-commercial >>developmers are sure their work won't be lost or abused. The "appointed >>resellers" will also benefit if there is more non-commercial work. They >>are allowed to sell it! >We will make no money from this.
Of course you will, if you offer nice support and handbooks. Folks have no other way to get your support and handbooks except purchasing the binary from you!!! Don't underestimate that. There are thousands of companies working this way in the "real world". This way they benefit from the fact that plenty of non-commercial work is done, which they can sell. >>(Actually my proposals have already been turned down, by unknown persons >>who influence the decisions of the "registrar". But maybe some public >>help will allow him to reconsider.) >Keep taking the anti paranoia pill one day they will take effect. Even the >registrar was against your proposal. I was actually voting in your favour >on this provided you kept the code official and it was not a 'patched' or >otherwise unofficial version. OK. I have no objections the freely distributed code is restricted to the official versions. I can also destroy anything 'patched', if my proposal is accepted. Do you think we can agree on my proposal, then? Peter
