Greetings (took me a while to catch up). What does everybody think of the Open Audio License? http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php It won't really have any teeth until it survives litigation once, but... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:43:59 +0100 > Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio > > 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__ > // John Bleichert // syborg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
