On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:12:42 +1030 Matthew Smith <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > Attribution is the key to the whole thing. Whilst we may not receive a > cent/penny/centi-euro when someone else packages and sells on our > music/software/etc., what we ARE getting is exposure. The more people > that get to see/hear/etc what we have done, the greater the chance that > people will start saying "this is great, we want more of this!" And > that's when - we hope - they will come to us and we will have an > opportunity to sell them something. That something may be a contract to > customise our piece of software, it may be a record deal. > > If, however, we have placed restrictive licensing terms (like no > commercial) on our work, it may be passed over by those who could > otherwise give our careers a boost, never see the light of day, and > never make us any money anyway. > > Hope this makes sense! > > Cheers > > M What a lot of people forget is that CC is not restrictive. There is nothing stopping you from having as many *other* license arrangements as you like with individuals or corporations. All my work is initially distributed in the form of medium quality oggs or mp3s, licensed as BY, NC, SA, however I have agreed different arrangements with several people that enables them limited commercial rights. It is taking time for people and organisations to appreciate CC licenses, but they are slowly coming round. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
