rolo wrote:

> <>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.

--
Mark Sparshatt