Subject: Re: GPL and trademarks and brandnames...
From: Scott Goehring <>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:31:14 -0500

"Brian" == Brian Bartholomew <> writes:

Brian> Here is a rough outline of license terms to address these
Brian> concerns:

Brian> 	If I'm a stranger to the project, I must pay $10 per year per
Brian> unit to use the software.  This money goes to compensate core
Brian> developers.  The core developer company promises to refund my
Brian> $10 pro-rata if it makes more than xx% profit a year, so I know
Brian> my money is going to cover costs and not outrageous profits.
Brian> Having bought in, I get source, which I can modify and
Brian> redistribute to others who have bought in.

Brian> 	If I'm a bug fixer, my $10 is waived that year.

Brian> 	If I contribute enough and the core developers like working
Brian> with me, I may be invited to be a core developer.  Then I get
Brian> paid to continue doing what I'm doing.

Think of the cost of administrating such a scheme.  Not only do you
have all of these annual $10 payments from users, but you have to keep
track of each of them so if you do earn excess profit, you can pay
them back.  You also have to cancel their licenses if they fail to
make an annual payment.  Add to this an arbitration procedure for
people who think they are entitled to a bugfixer rebate.  Add to this
defending lawsuits from people who think you've shorted them on their
refund (meaningless for someone who has a single seat license, but
what about that university with 15,000 seats?)  Starting to look a
little ugly, eh?