Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: > > 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. Maybe, but we also wouldn't disallow anyone to sell a gift. There are many reasons why someone would sell a gift, for example because some money is needed and everything else's already sold. > > "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. True, and this is the catch of the "share alike" in creative commons or open sourc/free software licenses: You can sell, but you must not take away rights when selling. > 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. Just some more food for thought: CC is discussing a sampling license currently, see http://creativecommons.org/projects/cc-sampling. This is of course an interesting concept, but I keep asking myself, what other licenses the lawyers will come up with, when future, yet unknown "common" uses will pop up. Today it's sampling, that gets a special treatment, yesterday it was filesharing, tomorrow it might be "public place sound designing" or whatever. All these use cases might require special exceptions to allow them without charge for some people. Compare that to the simplicity of a real free license. You wouldn't need a "sampling license" if you would be allowed to "sample" the whole tune for whatever purpose in the first place. But I'm getting utopian now, I know. It's an old grassroot anarchist heritage coming up again... ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
