Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio
From: John Bleichert (syborg_AT_earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 21:16:49 EET
Greetings (took me a while to catch up). What does everybody think of the
Open Audio License?
http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php
It won't really have any teeth until it survives litigation once, but...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:43:59 +0100
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio
>
> Hallo,
> Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I disagree. We don't usually offer a gift to someone and expect the
> > recipient to sell it. That's not a catch, that's just an expectation
> > of civilised behaviour.
>
> Maybe, but we also wouldn't disallow anyone to sell a gift. There are
> many reasons why someone would sell a gift, for example because some
> money is needed and everything else's already sold.
>
> > > "non-commercial use or
> > > distribution only" means non-free
> >
> > I'm not sure the 'freedom' to make a living from someone else's work
> > without contributing back is something that licences should
> > encourage.
>
> True, and this is the catch of the "share alike" in creative commons
> or open sourc/free software licenses: You can sell, but you must not
> take away rights when selling.
>
> > I'm not talking about remixers or samplers here - people
> > who take the work and add something to it. I'm talking about the
> > people who would sell the work as it is without adding any value, and
> > keep the money for themselves.
>
> Just some more food for thought:
>
> CC is discussing a sampling license currently, see
> http://creativecommons.org/projects/cc-sampling. This is of course an
> interesting concept, but I keep asking myself, what other licenses the
> lawyers will come up with, when future, yet unknown "common" uses will
> pop up. Today it's sampling, that gets a special treatment, yesterday
> it was filesharing, tomorrow it might be "public place sound
> designing" or whatever. All these use cases might require special
> exceptions to allow them without charge for some people. Compare that
> to the simplicity of a real free license. You wouldn't need a
> "sampling license" if you would be allowed to "sample" the whole tune
> for whatever purpose in the first place.
>
> But I'm getting utopian now, I know. It's an old grassroot anarchist
> heritage coming up again...
>
> ciao
> --
> Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
>
// John Bleichert
// syborg_AT_earthlink.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 22:02:11 EET