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
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
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.
-- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Sep 29 2002 - 12:57:13 EEST