Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Music licenses: which to choose?

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Music licenses: which to choose?
From: Frank Barknecht (barknech_AT_ph-cip.uni-koeln.de)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 12:49:17 EEST


Hi,
Ian Bell hat gesagt: // Ian Bell wrote:

> On Saturday 28 Sep 2002 3:42 pm, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > A license that prohibits (things like) commercial use or making money
> > is not a "Free" license anymore.
> it is. it is free as in 'freedom' to copy and redistribute.

No, it is not free.

I imposes a restriction on free redistribution: You are not allowed to
redistribute and (&&) take money for it. This is a 'non-free'
restriction according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the
Open Source (tm) definition:

"1. Free Redistribution

  The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
  the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
  containing programs from several different sources. The license
  shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

Also see http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for the OS
definition.

Free distribution including commercial distribution is very important.
Otherwise most of us couldn't comfortably run a Linux CD Distribution
from whatever vendor we bought it.

Saying "You are not allowed to make money from my music" is a freedom
reducing action, IMO.

ciao

-- 
 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Sep 29 2002 - 12:57:13 EEST