Your question is not entirely clear. But a company can certainly charge for installing a licensed product on behalf of the licencee, this is just a consulting or service fee (unless the licence specifically prohibits a third party from doing this, which is possible (although unlikely) if a) source code is being exposed, or b) there are other commercial sensitivities such as NDAs. But then that is not your risk, it's the licensee's)
As for Ubuntu, a company can again charge for installing or maintaining an Ubuntu install, again this is consulting/service. In fact you can SELL a copy of Ubuntu too, if someone is willing to pay for it that is their perogative (and they in turn can sell it themselves). You just have to provide the source and the licence, not just a compiled binary in order to comply with the GPL.
I can understand the position of the 'large company' providing the managed hosting for the Magento build. However, I also understand your concerns.
Assuming that you are only working on the design, there is no reason why you cannot implement your design on localhost with the Magento 'demo store' products. You can then take your design along to the 'small company', get your designs signed off, archive the /skin/frontend/default/macguffin and /app/design/frontend/default/macguffin folders, hand them over to the company providing the 'managed hosting' and then collect your pay-cheque.
By not allowing you access via FTP the 'managed hosting' provider are ensuring that their clients have no third-parties able to access any-of-their-stuff. Furthermore, design is not that big a deal in a Magento build, there is also the payment gateway, the shipping setup, analytics and everything else that happens on go-live. They are also taking the responsibility of providing uptime, availability and the aforementioned security.
You and I know that you can do all of that on a virtual-private-server and get it done in a matter of days, with lots of testing but no client liaison meetings, office overheads to pay for, an expensive project manager to explain everything to, excessive time-sheeting to keep up to date and so on.
However, the 'small company' will have reservations on allowing someone other than the 'large company' doing all of that. Given that their web presence is pivotal to the success of their business, given that they may not have management resources, given the fear of the unknown, given a lack of in-house expertise, politically the solution they have arrived at can be considered as making business sense to them.
There is nothing wrong with the business arrangement from a legal/licensing point of view. From your point of view of getting the job done, you can do your design offline, i.e. on localhost, deliver the deliverables and collect your cheque.
If the deal with the 'large company' does not work out then, if your work is good, you will be well placed to take on the project, to charge 'freelancer' rather than 'agency' rates and build a long term relationship with the 'small company'. However, you are not there yet, your best bet is to forge a close working relationship with the 'small company' and the 'large company'. For all you know, the 'large company' may have other clients, and, if you work well with them (i.e. drop the suspicions and animosity-from-the-outset), then you will possibly get other design work from their other clients.
发布评论
评论（2）
你的问题并不完全清楚。但是公司当然可以代表被许可人收取安装许可产品的费用，这只是咨询或服务费（除非许可证明确禁止第三方这样做，如果a）源代码，这是可能的（尽管不太可能）正在被曝光，或者 b) 存在其他商业敏感性，例如保密协议。但这不是你的风险，而是被许可人的风险。）
至于 Ubuntu，公司可以再次收取安装或维护 Ubuntu 安装的费用，这又是咨询/服务。事实上，你也可以出售 Ubuntu 的副本，如果有人愿意付费，那是他们的特权（他们反过来也可以自己出售它）。为了遵守 GPL，您只需提供源代码和许可证，而不仅仅是编译的二进制文件。
Your question is not entirely clear. But a company can certainly charge for installing a licensed product on behalf of the licencee, this is just a consulting or service fee (unless the licence specifically prohibits a third party from doing this, which is possible (although unlikely) if a) source code is being exposed, or b) there are other commercial sensitivities such as NDAs. But then that is not your risk, it's the licensee's)
As for Ubuntu, a company can again charge for installing or maintaining an Ubuntu install, again this is consulting/service. In fact you can SELL a copy of Ubuntu too, if someone is willing to pay for it that is their perogative (and they in turn can sell it themselves). You just have to provide the source and the licence, not just a compiled binary in order to comply with the GPL.
我可以理解为 Magento 构建提供托管的“大公司”的立场。不过，我也理解你的担忧。
假设您只进行设计，那么您没有理由不能使用 Magento“演示商店”产品在本地主机上实现您的设计。然后，您可以将您的设计带到“小公司”，让您的设计得到签署，存档 /skin/frontend/default/macguffin 和 /app/design/frontend/default/macguffin 文件夹，将它们交给提供的公司“托管”，然后收取您的工资支票。
通过不允许您通过 FTP 进行访问，“托管托管”提供商确保其客户没有第三方能够访问其任何内容。此外，在 Magento 构建中，设计并不是那么重要，还有支付网关、运输设置、分析以及上线时发生的所有其他事情。他们还负责提供正常运行时间、可用性和上述安全性。
你和我都知道，你可以在虚拟专用服务器上完成所有这些工作，并在几天内完成，进行大量测试，但没有客户联络会议，需要支付办公室管理费用，需要昂贵的项目经理来解释一切都需要，过多的时间表来保持最新等等。
然而，“小公司”对于允许“大公司”以外的其他人做所有这些事情会有所保留。鉴于他们的网络存在对其业务的成功至关重要，考虑到他们可能没有管理资源，考虑到对未知的恐惧，考虑到缺乏内部专业知识，从政治上讲，他们达成的解决方案可以被视为对他们来说具有商业意义。
从法律/许可的角度来看，业务安排没有任何问题。从完成工作的角度来看，您可以离线进行设计，即在本地主机上，交付可交付成果并收取支票。
如果与“大公司”的交易没有成功，那么如果你的工作很好，你将有能力承担该项目，向“自由职业者”而不是“代理”收取费用，并与他们建立长期合作关系“小公司”。然而，你还没有做到这一点，你最好的选择是与“小公司”和“大公司”建立密切的工作关系。就您所知，“大公司”可能还有其他客户，并且，如果您与他们合作良好（即从一开始就消除怀疑和敌意），那么您可能会从他们的其他客户那里获得其他设计工作。
I can understand the position of the 'large company' providing the managed hosting for the Magento build. However, I also understand your concerns.
Assuming that you are only working on the design, there is no reason why you cannot implement your design on localhost with the Magento 'demo store' products. You can then take your design along to the 'small company', get your designs signed off, archive the /skin/frontend/default/macguffin and /app/design/frontend/default/macguffin folders, hand them over to the company providing the 'managed hosting' and then collect your pay-cheque.
By not allowing you access via FTP the 'managed hosting' provider are ensuring that their clients have no third-parties able to access any-of-their-stuff. Furthermore, design is not that big a deal in a Magento build, there is also the payment gateway, the shipping setup, analytics and everything else that happens on go-live. They are also taking the responsibility of providing uptime, availability and the aforementioned security.
You and I know that you can do all of that on a virtual-private-server and get it done in a matter of days, with lots of testing but no client liaison meetings, office overheads to pay for, an expensive project manager to explain everything to, excessive time-sheeting to keep up to date and so on.
However, the 'small company' will have reservations on allowing someone other than the 'large company' doing all of that. Given that their web presence is pivotal to the success of their business, given that they may not have management resources, given the fear of the unknown, given a lack of in-house expertise, politically the solution they have arrived at can be considered as making business sense to them.
There is nothing wrong with the business arrangement from a legal/licensing point of view. From your point of view of getting the job done, you can do your design offline, i.e. on localhost, deliver the deliverables and collect your cheque.
If the deal with the 'large company' does not work out then, if your work is good, you will be well placed to take on the project, to charge 'freelancer' rather than 'agency' rates and build a long term relationship with the 'small company'. However, you are not there yet, your best bet is to forge a close working relationship with the 'small company' and the 'large company'. For all you know, the 'large company' may have other clients, and, if you work well with them (i.e. drop the suspicions and animosity-from-the-outset), then you will possibly get other design work from their other clients.