On Tuesday 18 Oct 2011 12:28:18 Guru गुरु wrote: > On 18/10/11 11:29, Narendra Sisodiya wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Vivek Khurana > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > Secondly, the NC clause is important in a country like ours where > > cheap run of the mill institutes mushroom everyday. How do you plan > > to protect exploitation in case someone downloads the the content from > > net, burns a DVD and starts selling it at price of his choice. In this > > scenario, he is building his business on content created out of public > > money.I think the current license has clause to prevent this. > > > > > > This is precisely I want to happen. Your arguments are not True. > > because My first question in the list that , -- "Give an example that > > somebody have earned huge profit by selling CC-By-SA or non-NC contents", > > Your argument is valid that --- "/How do you plan to protect > > exploitation in case someone downloads the the content from net, burns > > a DVD and starts selling it at price of his choice/" > > > > There is no need to protect. because EVERYBODY is allowed to do so. If > > Vivek burn and start selling videos than Narendra and many other will > > also start doing so and eventually price will become lower and best > > quality will win. > > This is good in theory, but not in reality. How is it that Microsoft > gets a huge premium for its Office suite when comparable office suite is > available free (to share and free of cost).
Why did the TN government include M$ os on laptops for schools when the original tender called for GNU/Linux? > While the case is black and white in case of office, The case is only black. One is creating a case based on thoroughly flawed data and logic. Especially when discussing content. > where we have a proprietary software as the > leader, what about Android - where another large company is able to > dominate the android development system. So is android 'free'? even if > the code is available for all purposes, what about the role of google in > shaping its course? Android has reached a state of dominance not because of google, but because hundreds of small chinese manufacturers (and many large ones) could get an os on to their products without paying massive licensing fees. They were free to use it commercially. This is the opposite of what you are arguing. Regarding the issue of practice (running with the hare and the hound), there are several commercial and free dalvik VM replacements in the pipeline. And dont forget that dalvik came about because another vm (java micro or whatever it was called) was NOT FREE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. If it were, Sun would have been alive, and in the shoes of google as far as the VM and it's eco system is concerned. You are arguing the exact opposite of what the facts state. > > Big corporations can use variety of methods to dominate the market and > drown out the efforts of others. Such large monopolies/oligopolies is > far more common in the IT sector than in any other. And their domination > distorts the market so much that it is meaningless to believe that since > anyone/everyone can enter the market, monopolies cant happen. But how exactly preventing commercial use stops that? Mpeg4 licence explicitly prohibits commercial use. And it's as close to being a monopoly as one could possibly get. Mpeg4 uses century old maths to do compression/decompression. Had not google thrown open VP5, everybody would have been stuck. In fact many content providers using MPEGLA technology (flash, mp3, mp4) are going to be in a soup. But that is another discussion. > > There is a need to prevent such practices and hence the NC clause has > meaning/value. It may be difficult to implement, but then that is true > of most policies/rules. while software can operate on binaries, policies > need to be able to cater to different kinds of contexts and needs. The content in question is licenced to a "monopoly" for commercial use. But the Narendra Sisodiyas of our country cant do any such thing. How is the NC preventing monopolisation. It is doing the exact opposite. > > While Ii agree that adding the NC clause makes it 'less free' than not > having it, I think it is simplistic to argue that a NC clause completely > makes it non-free and NC is always not desirable It is always not desirable, when the content is created from public funds. The use of NC for content, contrary to all the stated views, creates monopolies and is more than likely to allow misuse. _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
