> The non-commercial CC > license makes it a gift with a catch, or actually it makes it not a > gift at all in some sense. I disagree. We don't usually offer a gift to someone and expect the recipient to sell it. That's not a catch, that's just an expectation of civilised behaviour. > "non-commercial use or > distribution only" means non-free I'm not sure the 'freedom' to make a living from someone else's work without contributing back is something that licences should encourage. I'm not talking about remixers or samplers here - people who take the work and add something to it. I'm talking about the people who would sell the work as it is without adding any value, and keep the money for themselves. The major commercial Linux distributions don't allow this sort of behaviour any more. They use things like trademark law, or dual licences, to prevent it. In the case of music, if someone wanted to distribute a CC'd licenced piece commercially, paying the artist a fair cut, then all they'd have to do is contact the artist in the usual way and work out a deal. What's wrong with that? Cheers Daniel
