Tim Cowlishaw wrote: > 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.
This replaces one layer of "permission culture" with two. "Free Culture" in Lessig's formulation is opposed to "Permission Culture"... > [...] However, > to state that NC licences prohibit commercial exploitation of ones own > work is a complete falsehood. It can prevent you using derivatives of your own work commercially. NC neither prevents evil capitalists exploiting you (it was written specifically to work with Napster) nor protects the value of your work for the future (people can get it for free by the very nature of the licence). It is a deeply self-defeating licence but very seductive. - Rob. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
