2011/10/17 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <[email protected]>: > > Let me see if I can make it very simple: > > Content that is restricted from commercial redistribution is neither > "free" (as in freedom) nor "open" as per accepted usages of those words. > > Just about all one can legitimately about it is that it's free of cost. >
Saying restriction from commercial redistribution is not "free" is not practical. Prevention from commercial distribution is probably the only way to prevent abuse and exploitation. What if the content created by someone is used by an ad agency and sold for thousands of dollars ? Even worse in case of e-learning, people can copy the content and brand it as there own to sell it. In this case it is exploitation of both, creator as well as consumer. The concept of "Free" in content and software world are different. In software world, one has to compile and redistribute the binaries, for which there is a protection built into the licences as the licenses require the modified source code be redistributed with the binaries. In case of content no such restriction is possible because there is no source code. So how can a content creator allow content to be usable for free where there are no financial gains but restrict when someone is making financial gains ? regards Vivek -- The hidden harmony is better than the obvious!! _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
