Re: Selling Artistic License Software
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I've been following this thread and it left me rather puzzled; I was
> sure that I'd read the Artistic License and would have remembered if
> it had restrictions like those that are being suggested here.
>
> For example, Dale wrote that
> it clearly restricts distribution "for sale"
> but the words "sale" and "sell" do not appear in the Licence !
When I see "charge a fee" I equate that will "sell".
If charging a fee isn't selling then I can begin charging fees for the
products I sell, and I can stop collecting sales tax, because I'm not
selling anything ;-)
>
> What provision of the licence - please quote the exact text, in
> context - violates the DFSG ?
>
NONE! The DFSG specifically calls out the Artistic License as one it
considers free!
I know it has been hard to tell, but this thread, for the most part, has
been about the problems within the DFSG and what it says about the
freeness of software. This is one of the ones that is clearly visible to
me, specially when we have packages that consider the GPL and the Artistic
License as equivalent. (They say that the effected software may be
considered to be either under the GPL or Artistic.) Since I see them as
very different in the degrees of freedom that they provide, this bothers
me. Not enough to rip the guts out of what we have, and probably not
enough to expect an ammendment to it, as there are several "critical"
packages that use this license.
I see this as a distinction between "ideals" and "practicality". An ideal
definition of free software would be free of the sloppyness of this
license, but practical considerations require that we accept it as
adequate.
It seems to me that many of the personal and interpersonal conflicts that
have occured around the DFSG stem from differences in the degree to which
some individuals are willing to "give up" their ideals. I suspect that
much of the strident voiced oppinions speak from personal ideals. These
same folks may be perfectly willing to admit to the practical necessity of
the current document but are still unwilling to give up their ideals.
> The sentence that seems to me to be the basis of the problem is here:
> 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
> this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
> Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
> commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial)
> software distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package
> as a product of your own.
>
> The sentence is problematic because it is vague.
By itself it really is clear. Only in the context of the other "However,"
does it get vague.
What does it mean to
> `charge a fee for this Package' ?
Seems clear to me ... exchange money for "this Package".
What precisely is being paid for ?
This package.
> Remember that software itself cannot be bought and sold like ordinary
> property (text in the DFSG notwithstanding).
If this is true (and I don't agree) then the sentence in question is
simply redundant.
I see no conflict in selling a copy of a piece of software that has no
usage or distribution restrictions.
For me the reason free software works is that the "product" can be
"manufactured" as many times as is necessary with no "consumption" of
physical resources. Now, I know that this is not true in the strict sense.
When you put a copy of software on your machine, you consume disk space,
and you consume electrical power, whenever you run the program. The point
for software that is not true for corn, for instance, is that the value of
a floppy with software is much larger than the value of the physical
floppy alone, while for corn, the intrinsic value of the corn is its
physical self, not the order of the kernels on the cob.
This is why as a freelance programmer, it has always been a battle to get
the value for custom software, because the customer knows the "value" of a
floppy disk. I have always been able to get more money for software when
it was sold imbedded in hardware because of this perception issue.
So, the point is, if I have a customer/client who needs to get the
software that I can provide, and is willing to pay substantially more than
the face value of the floppy (or CD), why should a license considered Free
stand in the way of that transaction?
A fee might be either a
> fee for the act of distribution, or for granting a licence to use the
> program.
I would not confuse the above sentance with the typical statement:
... may free distribute this software, without fee ...
which declares there to be no license fee.
>
> My view would be that that sentence is intended to make it clear that
> you can't charge for licenses or permission to use Perl, or for other
> rights to do with it.
That is an interesting interpretation. However most of the rest of the
respondents on this issue read it like I do. While I don't agree that that
makes us right and you wrong, it is that lack of clarity that makes this
license potentially dangerous. If you must be that "creative" to
understand the intent, the is isn't well written or clear.
If it is interpreted as meaning that you can't
> charge a copying fee for media containing only the program then it
> would directly contradict the first sentence of s.5, which even uses
> the word `any' to strengthen its scope.
>
My problem is with the phrase "reasonable copying fee". I should be able
to ask an unreasonable fee and let market forces send my customers to more
reasonable vendors. (Understand here that I am talking of a hypothetical
self and not the real me) This simply seems to me to be a "cost control"
measure so that it is "almost" free in a monetary sense.
> The final sentence is IMO a further clarification, rather than an
> exception.
I agree, I just don't like the use of the word "own". I thought everyone
"ownes" the functionality provided by Free Software and that that is why
it is so great. (Not even the copyright holder of the software can "take
it away" from you. That sounds like the 90% part of ownership.)
Look, I know we are playing word games here, but that is exactly why I
have a problem with this license. If it requires extensive discussion to
determine just what the license has to say, then it is inherently
dangerous.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: