On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
You are mixing content with 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 ? > > 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. How come a teacher using content in classroom is commercial ? The content is designed for education and it is being used in education. As per your inference, if I make a commercial, closed source software using GCC, I have to release the source code. Which is obviously incorrect, because GCC's job is compiling software. But if you start a course where you simply download the content and compile it into some structure and start selling it, then it might be termed as commercial gain. Ditto for the running ads between the content. I dont know how many of you noticed that when you play IGNOU video lectures on youtube, there are no overlay ads on the video like normal content. That is because of MoU between IGNOU between youtube (pls dont as for a copy as I dont have one). Same is the case of NPTEL videos on youtube, no ads. Though I am not aware of any MoU between NPTEL and youtube but MPTEL site lists youtube as official partner http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/ . > > 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. > The argument is not just "simplistic" but it is "overly simplistic". The trade world is a complex world and if it was possible to have a simplistic view, all trade related laws would be simple. While CC license do not define the the term "commercial" but they define the terms "Collections" and "Distribute" and they do answer lots of questions. regards Vivek -- The hidden harmony is better than the obvious!! _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
