[Ardour-Dev] Licensing and enforced payments

[Jan Stary]

> >>>>As the original thread is attempting to be a location for ideas to be 
> >>>>posted and discussion is suggested to take place on a separate thread 
> >>>>lets start up this discussion here:
> >>>>
> >>>>8: Paid for SVN
> >>>>9: Paid License to: disable crippled interface, Get access to more 
> >>>>features, Disable RSS ticker
> >>>>   
> >>>How does a paid license square with the GPL?
> >>>
> >>>The only way I can see of enforcing payment to disable the crippled
> >>>interface etc. is to deny access to the source code.
> >>>      
> >>Well in a binary release that is for example provided for mac users that 
> >>cannot compile their own software that would not be a problem.
> >>    
> >                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >this is going a _bit_ too far.
> >
> >First off, being an opensource project, you do assume that your
> >users can and will compile from the source code that you provide,
> >right? Right?
> >
> >Now, you are calling it a "problem" if they can compile
> >their own software. Unbelievable.
> >
> >  
> This is very much a wrong interpretation.
> 
> I am not suggesting we don't provide the source code.

Also, I am not saying you do.

> I'm suggesting 
> that people who use a binary release don't usually tend to care about 
> compiling there own version

as long as the binary release does not pop up
a license-key form that wasn't here before.

Do you know of any GPL'd application that
asks the user for a license key?

> so your suggestion that we would have to deny access to the source
> would not be something that we would have to do.

Again: if you do provide the source code,
people will just #ifdef out the license code.

> There are many people who do not know, are not prepared or able to
> learn for whatever reason

Yes there are; but what fragment of the Ardour user base do they
comprise? Ardour user are, by definition, running an audio application
on Linux; that's not trivial; most of them know how to compile
from source. Why would you even doubt that?

> and they will pay for a License if they are given the 
> option to do so.

So why don't the same people donate, given the option to do so?
IMHO nobody is gonna be more willing to buy a license then to
click on 'donate'. It will just cripple the application.

> >(Second off, why would a Mac user not be able to compile
> >his own software, anyway? BTW, have you noticed that ardour's
> >webpage provides instructions on how to build ardour from
> >the source code?)
> >
> There is nothing to stop them from doing so. The code is gpl and yes 
> there are instructions for doing it which are easily available. That 
> doesn't mean that everyone will compile their own version.
> >
> >>>>>9: Paid License to: disable crippled interface, Get access to more 
> >>>>>features, Disable RSS ticker
> >>>>>          
> >>>If you want to stay open source (in whatever sense), you have
> >>>to provide the source code. And as soon as you do (9), someone
> >>>is gonna fork your code, with no other change than throwing
> >>>away the code that disables interfaces etc.
> >>> 
> >>>      
> >>And if they do that they will receive the evil eye of the developers and 
> >>make themselves look like a real *hole.
> >>    
> >
> >Exactly who are you speaking for now?
> >Exactly how will the evil eye make any money?
> >
> It will not make any money. It will make the person who actively tries 
> to stop Ardour from generating income feel awkward and maybe if the 
> collective will is turned against that person something unfortunate will 
> happen to them like getting stung hit in the face or getting a zit on 
> their forehead before a big date.

LOL actually; but I don't think it will work - "we will think bad of you
if you don't pay us" is not going to make anyone pay. It's only gonna
make people think less of Ardour.

> >>I think most rational people and busy developers will not be bothered to 
> >>maintain a fork of Ardour just to make sure a License key for mac users 
> >>and people who are unable to compile a binary isn't part of the system.
> >
> >No. Ardour is an opensource project.  Ardour users can and will compile
> >it from source code (including Mac users, which you seem to have picked
> >for some reason).  "Maintaining" such a fork would basically mean posting
> >a diff with a few carefully placed #ifdef's each time Ardour makes
> >a (crippled) release.
> >
> I'm betting they will find it easier to just compile with the License 
> option disabled.

Whoa! You mean there should be a _compile_option_ to (not) include
the licensing code? What's the point then?

> >>If it actually starts to make Ardour some money
> >>then that will be very good for everyone.
> >>    
> >
> >No it won't.
> 
> YES it will. If Ardour can generate more money that will be much much 
> much better for everyone.

You have left out the paragraph where I argue why it won't, havent you?
(Please help not reply with NO IT WON'T.)

Paul, please stop us. Would you ever consider putting a licensing
code into Ardour's code base that could be turned off with
--disable-licensing?

	Jan