From: rolo [mailto:rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com]
Subject: vuby - VM for Ruby
About license I feel it should not be GPL but an open source
application
which will if bought give you right to modify but not copy.
If you wish to
creates n copies you should buy n licenses.
This definitely isn’t an open-source license. Check out http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
gavri
From: rolo [mailto:rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com]
Subject: vuby - VM for Ruby
About license I feel it should not be GPL but an open source
application
which will if bought give you right to modify but not copy.
If you wish to
creates n copies you should buy n licenses.
This definitely isn’t an open-source license. Check out
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
let me reword it to “source accessible license”.
I think all the other point except point one ( maybe the most important one
for diehards) is okay.
rolo
Gavri Savio Fernandez wrote:
From: rolo [mailto:rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com]
Subject: vuby - VM for RubyAbout license I feel it should not be GPL but an open source
application
which will if bought give you right to modify but not copy.
If you wish to
creates n copies you should buy n licenses.This definitely isn’t an open-source license. Check out http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
gavri
There is plenty of room in the GPL for charging money for your software
if you want. Read this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Carl
on reading it fine print ( I am not a lawyer) I find point one is also
aceptable. It does not say right to free redistribution of copies. so all
the ten is acceptable.
rolo
-----Original Message-----
From: rolo [mailto:rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 1:28 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: vuby - VM for Ruby
From: rolo [mailto:rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com]
Subject: vuby - VM for Ruby
About license I feel it should not be GPL but an open source
application
which will if bought give you right to modify but not copy.
If you wish to
creates n copies you should buy n licenses.
This definitely isn’t an open-source license. Check out
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
let me reword it to “source accessible license”.
I think all the other point except point one ( maybe the most important one
for diehards) is okay.
rolo
“rolo” rohitlodha@hotwireindia.com writes:
let me reword it to “source accessible license”.
I think all the other point except point one ( maybe the most
important one for diehards) is okay.
Well, depending on the situation, since you are the copyright holder
of all of your code (or are you?), you have the option of
dual-licensing…i.e. by default it’s GPL, but for a fee a customer
would be allowed to distribute w/o releasing source code.
Something like the following:
–
Josh Huber
Well, depending on the situation, since you are the copyright holder
of all of your code (or are you?), you have the option of
dual-licensing…i.e. by default it’s GPL, but for a fee a customer
would be allowed to distribute w/o releasing source code.
Let me elaborate. I think GPL is not good for most of the softwares. I do
not want anybody who has bought the code be restricted in deciding what to
do with it. They can resell with source or without it. They may just delete
it if they feel like. What I restrict is just their right to makes copies.
Making copies is not good for any software.
let us take an example. X develops a very good software. He makes it
opensource it that is good for all and sells it at 100 bucks. I buy it and
do not add any value. I start making copies and selling it at 10 bucks. I
make more money than X and do nothing for betterment of software. In fact by
selling at 10 the same software, I force X to sell it at that price. Keeping
with this momentum others join, and in no time the softwares sells in this
world at virtually zero cost. Only way X could win is to collect all the
money in his first sale. How that is wrong. Why should the first buyer pay
so high money which if shared will be realistic. Now opensource did not help
in adding value also.
what I suggest is this. X develops a not so good software. He sells it to me
and Y at 100 each. I cannot sell it less than 100 because it is a loss for
me. so people like me sell it off at 100 or something less (second hand) and
forget the whole story. Y sees that the software can be improved. Since he
has access to source code and rights to modify, he makes changes and uses
it. Z, friend of Y sees a market opportunity in the software after changes
by Y. He asks Y to sell 50 copies of it at 200. Y buys 50 copies at 100 from
X (maybe he should get a discount) and sells the modified one to Z. He also
makes 100 bucks.
Second way, all the people who have contributed makes money on the value of
the contribution. There are no parasites in here.
This scheme perhaps cannot work in projects where there are many unrelated
contributors.
rolo
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber+rt@alum.wpi.edu]
rolo wrote:
<>
From: Josh Huber [mailto:huber+rt@alum.wpi.edu]Well, depending on the situation, since you are the copyright holder
of all of your code (or are you?), you have the option of
dual-licensing…i.e. by default it’s GPL, but for a fee a customer
would be allowed to distribute w/o releasing source code.Let me elaborate. I think GPL is not good for most of the softwares. I do
not want anybody who has bought the code be restricted in deciding what to
do with it. They can resell with source or without it. They may just
delete
it if they feel like. What I restrict is just their right to makes copies.
<>Making copies is not good for any software.
let us take an example. X develops a very good software. He makes it
opensource it that is good for all and sells it at 100 bucks. I buy it and
do not add any value. I start making copies and selling it at 10 bucks. I
make more money than X and do nothing for betterment of software. In
fact by
selling at 10 the same software, I force X to sell it at that price.
Keeping
with this momentum others join, and in no time the softwares sells in this
world at virtually zero cost. Only way X could win is to collect all the
money in his first sale. How that is wrong. Why should the first buyer pay
so high money which if shared will be realistic. Now opensource did
not help
in adding value also.
You’re right that open source wouldn’t work if people acted in the way
that you describe. The fact that it does work proves that most people do
not behave in this fashion. Open source works because people don’t just
sell the programs on hoping to make a quick profit, they help contribute
to the project, allowing X to make a better program.
<>what I suggest is this. X develops a not so good software. He sells
it to me
and Y at 100 each. I cannot sell it less than 100 because it is a loss for
me. so people like me sell it off at 100 or something less (second
hand) and
forget the whole story. Y sees that the software can be improved. Since he
has access to source code and rights to modify, he makes changes and uses
it. Z, friend of Y sees a market opportunity in the software after changes
by Y. He asks Y to sell 50 copies of it at 200. Y buys 50 copies at
100 from
X (maybe he should get a discount) and sells the modified one to Z. He
also
makes 100 bucks.Second way, all the people who have contributed makes money on the
value of
the contribution. There are no parasites in here.
There are no parasites in open source, which is why it works as well as
it does.
Now there is nothing to stop you using the license you proposed, since
it is your project. You just can’t use that license and call it open source.
-----Original Message-----
–
Mark Sparshatt