Helen,

>That is not quite correct. You only need to resubscribe if you want to keep
>getting upgrades. One subscription will cover you for life if you just
>stick with the version that is current when your subscription expires.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this one. One week ago, Jason responded
to a mail from Geoff stating the same as you are saying here:

"Actually, one point where my thinking is slightly different is even if you
don't want future upgrades and are satisfied with a particular freeze point
of IBO, if you are actively developing with it I think your subscription
should continue to be rendered. This means that you are still involved in
using IBO for commercial gain and more commercial gain so IBO should still
be considered a part of the whole process and receive under trustware what
is due for it. If your development efforts using IBO are inactive then that
can be then end of it, even if existing products made using IBO are still
bringing in a commercial revenue stream.

In short, the licensing applies to cover your development periods no matter
if you want an upgrade to IBO or not. It's actually more work for me to
support those who freeze at past versions so I don't want a licensing scheme
that encourages that."

>There are no royalties to be paid under any circumstances. You customers
>don't have to pay for right of use. You can supply the source code with
>your application but you have to include the headers and the Trustware
>licence details. Then, if your customer wants to do development on your
>product herself, or get another developer in to do it, she is obliged to
>redeem her obligations under Trustware and pay up. That's why it is called
>Trustware.

You may be right on this one - at least I have no proof to the contrary.
But it does sound strange to deliver the IBO source to anyone without Jason
even knowing it. So I wouldn't do this without Jason expressly confirming
that this is acceptable to his licensing scheme.

Set