reply in-line :- On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 13:59, Raj Mathur<[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 05 Sep 2009, shirish wrote: >> [snip] >> FWIK the non-commercial license doesn't prohibit him from doing that >> work. He just has to get consent from me. How the consent is done is >> between him and me. > > ...and if in 2019 there are 300 people posting with different licences > that prohibit commercial exploitation to the list, I have to get consent > from each of those 300 individually. Right, let's change that Rs 25 to > Rs 2,50,000, and as for the poor sucker who wanted the archives so he > could implement the ideas in his domain, well, he can fork out the cash > (after waiting a couple of years for me to trace all the authors from 10 > years back).
Hi all, I just wanted to cool off before coming back to the discussion. Lemme give another example and would like to know your take on it as well. Both Facebook and Flickr have had some interesting dynamics and terms of service http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2009/06/flickr_setting.html http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/flickr-v-free-speech-where-is-the-courage/ Now how this is relevant here, simply that FOSS mailing lists have to be more clear about their terms of service as well. If its 'public domain' in every sense of the word then there's no issue as I see it. <snip> > Regards, > > -- Raj > -- > Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ > GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F > PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
