Hi Am 11.11.2011 14:23, schrieb Aymeric Mansoux:
> It is in fact a crucial stage. By doing so, the author allows her or > his work to interface with a system inside which it can be freely > exchanged, modified and distributed. The freedom of this work is not > to be misunderstood with gratis and free of charge access to the > creation, it means that once such a freedom is granted to a work of > art, anyone is free to redistribute and modify it according to the > rules provided by its license. There is no turning back once this > choice is made public. This is IMHO pure nonsense. IMHO nothing can stop a pruducer from changing his mind for the future. Why should it be the way you imagine? What should be the reason for such a limitation ("no turning back") of his freedom? Can you show me, sorry, ONE case where a court has decided in your way? This artist is a lawyer, very best, H. > The licensed work will then have a life of its own, an autonomy > granted by a specific freedom of use, not defined by its author, but > by the license she or he chose. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org