29 Oct
2003
29 Oct
'03
9:48 a.m.
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
I am not. You seem to misunderstand me.
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.
What you seem to be saying is that user freedom is more important than
artist freedom. Why should an artist be compelled to to grant rights
to users? Free
software, or culture, is a gift - it's not something that users can
demand.
Yes, free software and free music is a gift. 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. (One could argue, that GPL-free also has a
catch, by disallowing to take the gift away)
That's all what I'm saying. I'm not demanding musicians or software
authors to do anything or give me anything. I also don't (want to)
agitate against non-commercial licenses. But "non-commercial use or
distribution only" means non-free, that's all that I'm saying.
And personally I don't like the close neighbourhood of a non-free
license to the free licenses within the CC license bunch, because it
gives the impression, that "non-commercial use/dist. only" still means
free, when in fact it doesn't, it just means "sometimes yes, sometimes
not".
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__