29 Oct
2003
29 Oct
'03
5:42 a.m.
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
Bear in mind that reserving the right of commercial
exploitation for
yourself doesn't mean that work can't be commercially distributed -
it just means a prospective commercial distributor would have to have
the artists' blessing to do it, and I don't see what's wrong with
that.
But then it cannot be distributed commercially freely by anyone. It
cannot be sold if you don't get a special permission to do so. So
actually the license doesn't give the user the full rights.
I don't quite see, why the right to use something commercially must be
considered something else than the right to run a program, listen to a
CD or give away a book.
I understand that musicians want to get paid for their music. I have
several friends who must live from their music's income. But rejecting
a licensee the right to commercial use simply is another kind of
license than what a free license should allow.
I mean, programmers like Paul Davis put months and years of work into
free software, too, without holding back the right to commercial use.
Commercial use only has to follow "the rules" like: no
copy-protection, no rights' stealing, etc. And Paul surely wants to
eat, too. Why should artists get to keep more rights for themselves
than the programmers?
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__