Sam, your point simply states that the blame for the clearly unfortunate situation does not necessarily lie with the producer of the combined work that uses non-FLO materials. Some people may not even agree and will insist that we can blame someone for choosing to use non-FLO materials at all. Ignoring that, however, the simple fact is that wherever the blame lies, the situation is definitely unfortunate. It is unfortunate that there *exists* non-FLO materials, period.
-- Aaron Wolf wolftune.com On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Chris Sakkas <sanglor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Unfortunately, another common scenario is for the gratis version to be > FLO > > but the for a cost version to combine FLO and non-FLO content. For > example, > > the print version of Dungeon World combines text under CC Attribution > with > > unlicensed images. > > I wouldn't say this is unfortunate; it is sometimes the best available > outcome. If you want to produce art or text that requires images or > other material that you must pay to license, then the most-complete > version of that work cannot be FLO. Each copy you distribute should > cost the reader at least what it marginally costs you to license that > material for redistribution. > > Nevertheless a thoughtful author will in this case also release a FLO > version containing only the FLO material, to improve access and > simplify reuse. > > SJ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@freeculture.org > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@freeculture.org http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
