From: Kevin Brown <blargity@...>
Date: 2005-10-03T11:06:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby licence...

On Sunday 02 October 2005 16:01, Greg Brown wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
[*snip*]
> > Once they've bought
> > my product, they have the source, and can modify/extend/learn to their
> > heart's content.  If they sell something off of it, or re-distribute, we
> > believe we deserve a cut.
>
> How far down the chain do you think this works?  Do you think that an
> author should pay for every book written in word?  The ethics of this
> boil down to software licensing, which by definition makes a piece of
> software non free.

Not far at all.  They do not have to pay per use, machine, or anything of the 
sort.  Simply, once your company purchases the product, the company can use 
it to fit their needs, unless that involves giving it to a different company.

> Whether or not this is good economics I will not flame on about.
>
> As a side note, the idea behind commercial free software is that your
> money should come from a service you provide that requires your time or
> resources, such as improvements to code, convenient packaging,
> documentation, etc, and not to the imaginary costs of replication,
> which simply do not exist.  Of course, you're free to charge whatever
> people are willing to pay for your software, but there is no reason
> that you should have a cut of their creations, whether or not they've
> been inspired by you, because it is there extra effort that yields the
> money.  If this type of collaboration does not appeal to you, why even
> bother using free software?

It does appeal to me, and the other reason to use free software is that it's 
(in my opinion) better.  Period.

> Of course, if you DO make your software free you can't demand a cut of
> their money, but you can always integrate the improvements they've made
> back into your work, which is a net benifit that probably outweighs
> that of royalties.
>
> The nature of copyleft is certainly subjective.  I support it fully,
> many in the ruby community do not.  This is why you're free to use a
> non copylefted free software license that is GPL compatible and keep
> everyone happy.
>
> <insult>
>
> Then again, it seems like you're more interested in money than people
> anyway, in which case, perhaps you might charge every time someone
> types a keystroke into your program, considering that it IS interfacing
> with your program, after all.

I never considered for a second anything that interferes with the way the 
program works.  Doing this would involve logging keystrokes, counting, 
calling home, lots of extra junk.

Side note: The people who buy my software WILL charge their customers by the 
keystroke, or more accurately by the record entered.  They are data entry 
houses.

> </insult>