Re: RFC 211 (v1) The Artistic License Must Be Changed

> >One problem is the definition of "Reasonable Copying Fee" given in the
> >license.  It is possible the definition means: "You can charge any amount as
> >copying fee, if people will pay it".  If this interpretation is correct,
> >there is no real legal limit on the fee at all.
> 
> That is again my understanding of the AL and again it is a feature I like.
> 
> >
> >However, there is another interpretation that also seems legally valid.  The
> >definition given of "Reasonable Copying Fee" could actually intend to place
> >a limit on copying fees that prohibits charging enough to make a profit.
 
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> If the licence changes to that intepretation than I will stop using it for
> my software. I _want_ people to be able to make a profit from my efforts,
> including, but not limited to, myself.

My worry is that there is not enough clarity in the language to make it
clear which interpretation is correct.

> I would be fascinated to see how a "reasonable fee" could be better
> defined. Media cost may not be the issue, it may be fuel cost to fly
> across Australia to deliver it, or a large fee may be "reasonable" just
> for the expertise to providing it on RTX11 8-inch floppies.

Have you taken a look at the RFC I posted after that?  It redefines
"Reasonable Copying Fee" a bit better, I think.


-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn  -  http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE5wjOm53XjJNtBs4cRArfHAKCkvyXzKvdTAhC/SsS6lF81sHZL+gCbBhV1
UxPA/MDpqsjI/pd71yyzlxs=
=gFa7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----