On 10/3/07, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Essentially, non-commercial sharing limits production of free software > and free culture to those who do other things to earn income - > employed by Microsoft, for example. It is commercial in one way, in > that it's very attractive to people who have large amounts of money, > so they'll give some to iCommons, but it's ultimately anti-commercial > for free culture and detrimental to society.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand why this is the case. Granted there are a lot of problems to NC, and it is indeed antithetical to the Stallmanite view of Free Culture espoused be the FLOSS movement, but NC simply does not mean that an artist cannot commercially exploit their work, as Commercial rights can be obtained through a seperate licence - it's simply a case of 'ask first, and agree terms' before allowing commercial sharing. I'm not saying i necessarily agree with this (although i think it has value in some contexts), but the free culture movement is a broad church, and I am happy to accept NC works as nominally 'free culture'. Others may disagree, but as mentioned before, pluralism is a strength rather than a weakness in my opinion. However, to state that NC licences prohibit commercial exploitation of ones own work is a complete falsehood. Cheers, Tim
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
