On Tuesday 18 Oct 2011 02:15:58 Vivek Khurana wrote: > 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...
I am not. The content is (quite often) a mix of different content streams (audio, video, ppts, subtitles) and embedded program. I am labelling these two as source. Ofcourse it is possible to reverse engineer the content to separate various parts. In some cases it may not be possible eg, seprating ppts from a video. One has to understand that in the digital world all of these partitions are semantic skullduggery, trying to maintain an illlogical link with past practices. > > >> 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 ? Ask that in the courts. It is a settled fact that one cant use software and content in a classroom without permission. In the late 90s ALL major computer classes were shafted by software vendors. Afair the defence was exactly what you proposition and the courts ruled otherwise. At least a few had to wind up. > 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. You are dead wrong. GCC is now licenced under V3 : "So, if you use GCC, with or without GPL-compatible enhancements, that would be an Eligible Compilation Process. If you only use GPL-incompatible compiler tools, that would be an Eligible Compilation Process as well. (It's not uncommon for people who build software for GNU/Linux to link against the GCC libraries even if they're using a different compiler.) However, if you used GCC in conjunction with GPL-incompatible software during the process of transforming high-level code to low-level code, that would not be an Eligible Compilation Process. This would happen if, for example, you used GCC with a proprietary plugin." Conditions apply to your above statement "gcc's job is compiling software". But even assuming the above eligible process, Let's say you are teaching a course on compilers. And you use the GCC and it's code as part of another compiler you create - say for a new microprocessor. Then that code has to comply with the eligible process. Your end use does not in any way change the need for compliance. > 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/ . You forgot all the ads plastered on the youtube page. I dont suppose people visit those youtube pages to watch the ads. So youtube is commercial. And again another selectively simplistic case. What happens when I include other resources on the page with ads and the disputed video. No splicing videos in the native nptel stream. But how about an opening jingle, then the nptel video, scripted pause of nptel video followed by a another jingle etc. I havent touched the original video. My page has lots of additional resources, including other videos. As i said, restricting commercial use, will include teaching as well as all sorts of other peripheral use cases. Legal action will dpned on how deep the pockets of the distributor was. > > > 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. Redundant again. Not defining a term clearly is an opening to selective interpretation. It does not simplify anything at all. When you say collection you are implying boxing (into some distribution medium). When I say collection, I dont mean mere boxing. I mean mangling it in various ways to allow many many possible uses. > > regards > Vivek _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
