On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83d59@mail.gmail.com... regarding http://www.fractint.org/ (...)
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
(...)
Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
CC-BY-SA doesn't have or allow mandatory payments. It requires only that you must attribute the original author(s) when redistributing, and may not change the license. You may be thinking of something more like CC-BY-SA-NC, which is not a free license. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use and/or sale without payment, provided that attribution is done and the license is not changed.