> There are reasons she could want to do that. I could cite the famous artist
Nina Paley. But Gwenn Seemel is closer to a sculptor:
http://www.gwennseemel.com/index.php/copyright/
Thanks for the links, I'll take them a look for what's rest of Sunday.
> Anyway, the sculptor *can* "allow everyone to sell his sculptures without
paying him anything" but he does not *have to*. Like I wrote before, I do not
consider that forbidding commercial uses of artistic work is unethical.
We share the same thought.
> They do not *have to* be allowed to "sell the product" because it is
nonfunctional (not because of the effort put by the artist; the same could be
said of free software developers). They *can* do that if the author allows it
though. The artist decides and either way is fine. What is not OK in my book
is to forbid non-commercial sharing.
I agree with you.
