On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Vivek Khurana <[email protected]>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. > show me some example where CC-By content got exploited !! Its like "SEA WATER", any body is allowed to commercialize it but who will purchase it ? There might be some good person who can setup a purification unit of water and want to sell it Or sell a normal water to a person who is living 20KM from "SEA WATER". in both case, they are getting they are money out of their services ! See Video of NPTEL !! Gods knows their licences ! they charges heavy ! Imagine they licence it under CC-By, I/Somebody will jump into selling those Videos. I can sell 500 GB video preloaded harddisk or just 400GB full video repo to many many colleges and students. student are ready to buy them because they connot download it. > 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 ? > > Totally agree but I am em-phasing on the case of NGO and Govt where they use public money. and If somebody want to financial gain then WHY the hell he will go with "FREE NON COMMERCIAL " distribution ie CC-By-NC CC-By-NC -- you cannot earn because you are allowing free distributions and other cannot earn because it is NC-- If anybody bothering about financial they go with (c) 2011, Author, All Right Reserved it is much better than CC-By-NC in all "practical aspects" -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
