Re: License Dilemma

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:07:44 +0200
"Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky" <dg-nospam@midasitech.com> wrote:

> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> 
> > There are many ways to get paid for doing free software, they range
> > from support to implementing features users want.  You should
> > explore the way that suits you the best.  Patents are not required
> > to make a living, they are only a hindrance in doing so.
> 
> BUT I AM NOT DOING A SOFTWARE!!!
> AND I AM NOT IN A BUSINESS OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT !!!
> 
> I am doing research in some industrial area!!! 
> And I am using computer as a medium for distribution
> of my work. A same way writers or painters use 
> papers to distribute their work.

You will have to decide what it is you have created. If it is software
(I know you said it isn't), it enjoys copyright protection. This means
that your software cannot be copied, but the the idea is not protected,
and can be re-implemented. In addition, software can (in the USA at
least) be patented - this boils down to protecting the idea and/or
algorithm. 

A painting or a book is protected by copyright. 

A device can be patented (and the engineering drawings copyrighted). 

Patenting something costs a lot of money, because the procedure is
elaborate and arcane. You need to pay the services of a patent agent or
attorney, and they don't come cheap. Copyright is automatic and cheap -
you write it, draw it, paint it and you've got the copyright. 

A business process can be patented. The document describing it is
protected by copyright. That means that anyone can write a book on your
patented business method, but cannot use the method. 

> AND IN CONTRAST with writers or painters I intend 
> to give additional rights to users and colleges.

This you can do with both copyrighted and patented things through a
license. 

> To copy and derive work for themself and friends.

Then you should have a license drafted that allows people to prepare
derivative works for their own use, but not distribute these works for
copyrighted material, and/or a license that allows individuals to use
your patented invention for personal use without paying a fee. 

> But I am not intend to give up my rights in favor
> of publishers.

Then you should stipulate so in your license, which will not be the
GPL as it allows redistribution. 

But first you will have to decide what it is that you have
produced/invented/designed/coded so that you can select the appropriate
approach.

> Its so obvious, I don't see a point of discussion.
> You can't ask writer to give up his rights on his book.
> And to survive on answering questions from readers on
> hot line. Or rewriting some chapters by orders from readers.

No, because books are meant to be read. Once you have written
successful books, or produced successful research (like winning a Nobel
prize) you can use your fame to make money on the lecturing circuit.
This also works for failed politicians like Al Gore ;-)

> That pliantly insane.

I think you mean "patently insane" "-)

Take care,

-- 
Stefaan A Eeckels
-- 
Never explain by malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
However:
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.