> >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
PGP signature
