Re: mingw build?

[John W. Eaton]

On 17-Jun-2011, Mon wrote:

| I would be willing to spend up to $1000 per license.

I don't think I would be selling "licenses" in the proprietary
software sense (i.e., you need a license in order to run the software)
since I don't think that is allowed by the GPL.  What I would be doing
is saving you the trouble of building Octave yourself, and offering to
provide some level of service in case you had problems installing or
using it.

Looking at GPLv3 section 6:

    6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

    You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
  of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
  machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
  in one of these ways:

  [...]

Section 4 is about conveying verbatim copies and section 5 is about
conveying modified source versions.  Let's only consider verbatim
copies for now since that is simpler.  Section 4 is

    4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

    You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
  receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
  appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
  keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
  non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
  keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
  recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

    You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
  and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

So the last clause here says it's OK for me to charge anything I want
for distribution and service.  Whatever I can get.  So far, so good.

But the first part, is that intended to apply to the binary copy that
I'm selling as well, or just the corresponding source code?

If it applies to the source code only, then I could distribute a
binary under terms that say you can't redistribute your binary copy,
but you can get the source code from me and build your own binaries
for distribution.

But reading section 6 again, it seems to say that the terms of section
4 are supposed to apply to the object code form of the covered work,
in which case if I sell copies, the next thing that happens is someone
puts it up on the web to distribute for free, and there is little
point in trying to sell just the copy of the binary without something
extra, like a support contract.  Or am I misreading something here?

If people aren't willing to pay for support, there is little incentive
to sell copies of binaries if those copies can be redistributed for free
by the person buying the copy.  In that case, we might as well just
put a virtual tip jar up on the web.  But my experience has been that
voluntary donations does not generate sufficient funding to pay for
even one software developer's salary.

| However, I myself wouldn't pay for support.

It seems to me that support is the more valuable item here.  And as I
see it, just providing the binary is a form of support, since it seems
that most people can't build it on their own.  And even if they could,
it would make sense to spend a few dollars just to avoid the hassle.

But again, if the binary that is for sale can just be uploaded and
redistribute for free, then why would more than a few people pay?

| However for that kind of price I would expect a "fancy" gui/IDE.

I see that as a completely separate issue.

jwe