Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Music licenses: which to choose?
From: Frank Barknecht (barknech_AT_ph-cip.uni-koeln.de)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 01:38:47 EEST
Ian Bell hat gesagt: // Ian Bell wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Sep 2002 9:49 am, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > 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:
> Not really. He said 'making' money not 'taking' money. Making money implies
> a profit and if I were a good lawyer I would argue that I could sell copies
> of his software at cost.
Point taken, that's a difference. But even prohibiting to *make* money
qualifies a license as a non-free license because of the same reasons,
For example: I buy my Debian CDs from a vendor, who does make a profit
from selling them, and this is only possible, because all Debian
software allows this kind of use. Now, if the Debian community decides
to adopt some kind of Debian anthem, this song's license must allow,
that it is selled with the rest of the distribution. A song, whose
license forbids this, could not be this "Hymn to Freedom".
-- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 01:50:03 EEST