licensing terms (was: Re: Why?)

licensing terms (was: Re: Why?)

[Martin]

Before I jump into that discussion I want to say that I'm quite
happy with the current price.  Well, I own my "one-man-company",
for a student the price might be a bit steep, but it's still
only a fraction of what the required hardware costs, as somebody
else already mentioned, and YOU GET THE SOURCE, OF COURSE.

> There is no fixed price for a commercial license (i.e.
> a license which lets the buyer resell products or services
> based on the released software).

Where exactly is the borderline between "commercial" and
"non-commercial" use, e.g. if I own a "non-commercial"
license, is it OK to

	- use the text processing software of Plan 9
	  to PRODUCE a book or any other piece of
	  writing I later SELL to others?

	- being paid for writing a book ABOUT Plan 9
	  (not necessarily USING Plan 9 for the process
	  of writing).

Further, given that there is another person or company who
ALSO has a valid "non-commercial" license (bought independently
from mine), would it be OK

	- being paid by the OTHER person/company for
	  developing software using their system.

	- being paid for teaching the other person how to
	  use the system and about its inner workings (i.e.
	  SELLING knowledge I acquired by means of MY OWN
	  system)?

	- develop software on MY OWN system and later SELL it
	  to someone else with a valid "non-commercial" license?

> Of course companies can use Plan 9 internally on as many
> computers as they like for $350 total.

In fact, that's what I like so much about Plan 9's licensing terms!
In contrast: According to the licensing terms of my ISC-Unix I am
allowed to have "at most two copies" of the system.  If I count the
installation set as "one", the active installation on my hard disk as
"two", I'm going to break the license whenever I backup on tape ...

--Martin