Hymen writes: > A gives specifications to B. B develops the software. A buys a bunch of > copies of the software from B and resells the copies to its own > customers.
I assumed that you meant that A (used to be B) was going to require B (used to be A) to sell the software only to A as a condition of the contract. The arrangement you describe above, assuming the description is complete, is fine. It also means that B is free to sell or give the software, source and all, to anyone, including A's customers. Note that the binary copies A sells minus source must be the actual tangible copies it gets from B. > I don't know why you find this concept so strange. This kind of > arrangement must be ubiquitous in the industry. I doubt it. Commonly, B grants A a license and A makes the copies they need themselves. > Note, by the way, that this is similar to a model that's often proposed > for how people can make money from free software. A company pays a > developer to develop customized free software, but the developer retains > rights to it and can further develop it for other customers. The company doesn't get every copy they need from the developer. They get one copy (with source) and a license (the GPL) permitting them to duplicate it. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
