I am happy that there have been about 140+ responses to my question
if the GPLv3 should include a royalty clause.
But, only Richard Stallman wrote a relevant answer, saying royalties
are incompatible with Free Software, and such a clause has no place in
the GPL.
I am afraid the matter does not end there - there is room in our law
to explore that area further. Copyright law is designed with the
object of avoiding penury of authors and promoting their welfare. S.
53A introduced into our Copyright Act in 1995, says:
<quote>
53A. Resale share right in original copies.-
(1) in the case of resale for a price exceeding ten thousand rupees,
to the original copy of a painting, sculpture or drawing, or of
the original manuscipt of a literary or dramatic work or musical
work, the author of such work if he was the first owner of rights
under section 17 or his legal heirs shall, notwithstanding any
assignment of copyright in such work, have a right to share in the
resale price of such original copy or manuscript in accordance
with the provisions of this section:
Provided that such right shall cease to exist on the expiration of
the term of copyright in the work.
(2) The share referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such as the
Copyright Board may fix and the decision of the Copyright Board in
this behalf shall be final:
Provided that the Copyright Board may fix different shares for
different classes of work:
Provided further that in co case shall the share exceed ten
percent, of the resale price.
(3) If any dispute arises regarding the right conferred by this
section, it shall be referred to the Copyright Board whose
decision shall be final.
</quote>
Now, it is quite possible to contend:
Under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, "literary work" includes
computer programs, tables and compilations including computer
databases, and under the GPL and like free licenses, every licensee
has the right to resell copies for any price[1], and if the price is
greater than 10,000/-, a royalty is payable even if the author has
assigned the work.
AFAIK, such beneficial provisions cannot be contracted out or avoided.
If the package includes many computer programs written by several
authors, then, probably the Copyright Board may decide in what
proportion the royalies are to be apportioned and paid.
If authors do not make claims to royalty either under the GPL or under
Section 53A, then it indeed shows their magnanimity and strong
aversion to copyrights - characterised rightly as evil by Macaulay.
Free Software developers releasing their works under the GPL, legally
oblige lincensees to give back code in return if they modify the work
- but never any money. The contributions and donations in cash or
kind are purely voluntary.
Free Software is a charity - let there please not be any confusion
about its true nature. The author makes a voluntary dedication and
any organisation focused solely on Free Software would largely be a
charitable organisation.
For example, the Free Software Foundation is a charitable
organisation. They seek donations and help (visit:
http://www.gnu.org/help/donate.html) to do their work and carry on
with their mission.
AFAIK, FreeBSD, Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL, OpenSSH, KDE, GNOME are all
maintained by non-profit foundations. There is no legal obligation to
pay them any money, but a large number of donors do donate either in
cash or kind or make other kinds of contributions and keep their
activities going.
After being generous and charitable in substantially dedicating their
computer programs under a free license, imo, it is futile to make
feeble attempts to either collect royalties or license fees over the
name assigned to the computer program released under a free license,
claiming it to be a "trademark". The copyright gives very substantial
rights, and trademarks are subsidary to those rights. Trademarks are
proprietary in nature, and have nothing to do with Free Software.
Suppose linux kernel developers say, well redistribute the code, but
do so without calling it 'linux', then how would do market know it is
'linux' that is being packaged and sold? It is quite silly to make
such claims and such terms and conditions only tend to give Free
Software a false proprietary color. Every time a free software
developer fall into the "trademark" trap, the propreitary camp scores
a point.
There are a number of legitimate ways of using trademarks, but naming
the computer program under a free license with a trademark is not one
of them.
Every proprietary business may package and distribute Free Software
with trademarks that they may own and license - but that would have
nothing to do with the Free Software in question. I do not have the
time or patience to explain it here - I would only say those who do
not understand this would figure it out the hard way.
Every question to this list is only begging for answers, and the
replies, if useful and relevant, are certainly an act of charity.
I think I am not obliged to thank anyone here :)
-Ramanraj K
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html