On Monday 17 Oct 2011 06:13:39 Vivek Khurana wrote: > 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.
Exact same process can be used with free software, specifically gplv2 and v3. > 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. Not correct. The content is the sourcecode (mostly). But in specific cases like say flash/video/audio, the source code could consist of multiple inputs (eg text overlays, audio, embedded widgets). finally compiled into the video. > 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 ? You cant, especially when the term "commercial" is totally ambiguous. What happens when an educational website/provider distributes the content for free, but merges several commercial ads into he content. what happens when a teacher uses the content in a classroom as - she is after all paid for the lecture. The argument for restricting "commercial" use is a strawman argument based on a very simplistic understanding of business models. This restriction is open to all sorts of misuse. Anyone intending to use such content should do so with the utmost caution. Things are not as simple as made out to be. > > regards > Vivek _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
