On Tuesday 23 August 2005 21:16, Timo Neuvonen wrote:
> Just a few badly organized comments that came into my mind follow:
> > but I am very reluctant to create a Bacula entity in the US
> > In addition, some Europeans may object to the US government
> > having information on funds transfers to them.
> > As a consequence, I would like to exhaust the possibilities in some oth=
> > English speaking countries before going to the US -- e.g. England, Malt=
> > Belize, Ireland, Isle of Mann, Gibraltar, ...
> With Bacula's roots in Switzerland, and taking into consideration the
> arguments cited above, how about running the foundation and setting the
> license fees in some other currency but USD? Switzerland doesn't use Euro=
> but maybe it could be one choice, if you wish to highlight the non-US
> status of the foundation.
If there is a foundation, it will probably be in some English speaking coun=
so that the by-laws are in an "International" language. Yes, the Euro is a=
idea, but I'm not trying to totally eliminate the US -- just not get involv=
in their paperwork and databases ...
> > By the way, I have added a tier fee structure as suggested by one user
> > to the OpenSourceFunding document. The fees step from $100 to $500
> > depending on the gross revenues.
> Since there are licences, and upgrade licenses, what is the difference
> between them? Would a upgrade license be required when a) new version of
> Bacula is released b) user needs a new package of the same version of
> Bacula for a new version of eg. Red Hat? Or both a) and b) ?
> Would a license fee for a binary package also mean an unwritten promise
> that the licensee can expect also the next releases of Bacula be packaged
> for the same architecture/distribution, although no support is promised?
> How about the next release of the same op-sys distribution, is it then
> reasonable for the licensee to expect that there also will be a working
> packaged version of Bacula?
> I think they are cases that should be thought of in advance, and included
> in the licensing terms.
Good points, I'll try to clarify them all. I assume you know or pretty muc=
know the answers already. If not, please ask. I will say, that there are=
no guarantees about anything (no future product, ...), except that the sour=
as released at the same time will always be available somewhere.
> Couple of ideas about the tier structure:
> - maybe there could be a low-end free-of-charge license class, say for
> companies below 0.1 million? This would make more easy to find the limit
> between home user and business user. This way a home user that occasional=
> does some part-time work with his/her home gear, would not feel quilty for
> not paying a license.
Yes, good idea. Thanks.
> - the suggested tier system climbs rather quicly to $500, but makes no
> difference between 5-million company and billion-class company running
> business in several countries. Maybe a site license per a single
> georaphical address, or a tier system based on the number of client
> computers backed up (maybe independent of architecture) could be another
Yes, I thought about such things too, but it all gets very complicated fast=
The idea is stay as far away from a commercial venture as possible but to=20
"encourage" donations. Hopefully asking for more would not be necessary. =
This is meant to be a way for Bacula to perpetuate itself. If I see it=20
making money or losing money, then I'd be tempted to reduce the fees or try=
some ideas like what you suggest.
> How about a tier system of eg. 1-3 computers (typically, a desktop, a
> laptop, and a server ) for free, and the next tiers eg. 4-10, 11-20, 21-5=
> 51-100, 101-200, 200+ clients per site. Number of client computers reflec=
> the revenue of the company anyway, and it is more common licensing scheme
> than asking for revenue info.
This is too close to commercial type pricing for me, and could not be easil=
enforced either. I have nothing against the idea, I'm just trying to be=20
*extremely* modest in my requests. $100 is not excessive even for an=20
individual and $500 isn't either but is a nice little contribution even if =
came from IBM.
> http://www.bacula.org/OpenSourceFunding.html says about non-profit
> entities: "----
> Any of these exempt entities would lose their exemption if they pay in any
> way for installation of Bacula (this probably needs a lawyer to define
> Yes, it would require a lawyer. The entity is paying for installation also
> in the cases when there is an in-house person who is getting his monthly
> paycheck for miscellaneous IT support, whether part-time or full-time.
> Out-of-house consultants or pre-installed system suppliers are sometimes
> very similar to in-house staff, things may chance overnight when some
> operations are outsourced.
> How about research departments within universities, that are doing resear=
> work ordered by commercial entities? It's still under the name of the
> university, but the whole research team for a certain project may get all
> the funds from a strictly commercial company. Actually, universities seem
> to traditionally have special rules for licenses, but if a license may be
> paid by contributing, that's often what universities may do. So, is there
> really a reason to specifically mention universities in license terms?
I probably would never want to charge a University -- they do not generate=
revenues (in general -- some do as you mention), and they tend to make thei=
software available under very non-restrictive licenses -- they are much lik=
many Open Source users/developers. If they do generate money, it is usuall=
put back into the education system. However, governments do generate=20
revenues, lots and they get bigger and bigger and consume more and more, so=
if they pay for consultants, they can pay for Bacula, otherwise, they reall=
One major point that I had not thought of is that any binaries under such a=
license could not be distributed on Source Forge. This Source Forge has=20
confirmed. This is really no big problem, but it might also mean that the=20
project as a whole will have to move off of Source Forge. I just asked this=
question, so it will be interesting to hear what they say.
Everywhere the terms of usage of Source Forge and other such places talk ab=
Open SOURCE. I have seen no reference to binaries, so there seems to be a=
sort of undefined area out there concerning what I am proposing. In any=20
case, the idea did not go over well with them.
Jos=E9 Luis what would the best (least disruptive) way be for me to get Deb=
reaction to this?