Robert Feldt <feldt / ce.chalmers.se> writes:

> BTW, my impression from the relatively low "traffic" in this thread is
> that it is kind of tabu to think in terms other than GPL/Ruby/Artistic
> licenses. Or is it simply that people dont care? Please share your
> thoughts! I'll summarize all points and put them on a web page for future
> reference.

OK, you've shamed me out of hiding.

1. Exactly who collects the 80% that goes back to the Ruby
   community? Who decides how it is spent? This strikes me as being a
   large problem where there is no organization that "is"
   Ruby. Someone (Ben?) suggested a Ruby Institute or somesuch, but
   that seems to me to suffer from the same problems.

2. $30 is way too low. For most companies, this is well below the
   radar: in fact it probably costs them more than this to get th
   check written.

3. You'll need to have an invoicing system in place to deal with
   purchase orders.  Unless you have a fairly sophisticated payment
   receiving system in place, it'll probably cost you a significant
   portion of the $30 in fees to get the money banked.

So, my recommendation would be to decide whether or not you have a
commercially viable product. If so, charge for it accordingly. Then
offer a version of the product for free for non-commercial or for
individual use.

If you want to make a contribution back to the community from your
profit, then you'll be a hero!


I'm not trying to put you off posting your work. On the contrary, the
more stuff out there the better. I'm just suggesting that there may be 
more to is than asking for a small amount of money for each license.


Regards


Dave