Am Dienstag, 04. Januar 2005 um 22:43:41 Uhr (+0100) schrieb rasmus
fleischer:
Personally, I'm astonished that so many people (including a large part
of the net's copyfighters, and many nettimers too) by default put
NonCommercial-licenses on every line of text they produce -- seemingly
without a thought on what consequenses such that license may bring.
Yes, few people are aware that imposing the non-commercial restriction
on a licensed work makes it non-free in terms of the Free Software and
Open Source movements. The Free Software definition of the FSF/GNU
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html defines as the second of
its software freedoms 0-3 The freedom to redistribute copies so you can
help your neighbor. This includes the freedom of commercial
redistribution. Later on the same page, the text states that 'Free
software' does not mean 'non-commercial'. A free program must be
available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial
distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer
unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
The Open Source Definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and the Debian Free
Software Guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract define
similar permission under their point one, Free Redistribution. The
Debian project explains why Free Software permits commercial
redistribution on http://www.debian.org/intro/free:
This last point, which allows the software to be sold for money
seems to go against the whole idea of free software. It is actually
one of its strengths. Since the license allows free redistribution,
once one person gets a copy they can distribute it themselves. They
can even try to sell it. In practice, it costs essentially no money
to make electronic copies of software. Supply and demand will keep
the cost down. If it is convenient for a large piece of software or
an aggregate of software to be distributed by some media, such as CD,
the vendor is free to charge what they like. If the profit margin is
too high, however, new vendors will enter the market and competition
will drive the price down. As a result, you can buy a Debian release
on several CDs for just a few USD.
Wikipedia defines as commerce the exchange of something of value
between two entities. That 'something' may be goods, services,
information, money, or anything else the two entities consider to have
value. In negative terms, any distribution that is not a gift is
commercial. That even includes copying a Linux CD for someone else for
50 cent in order to cover the cost of the CD-R. It also includes, for
example, the inclusion of an essay published in the Internet into a
print book or magazine (like the Nettime reader) that is being sold for
a price, even if it's an underground publication that makes no profit or
the sales of which don't cover production costs. Even for such a
non-profit publication, a work licensed under non-commercial terms
couldn't be freely used, but would require an additional permit by the
author/creator. If the work is a collective creation, for example from a
Wiki, the authors of which can't be traced, then it would be impossible
to legally reprint the text in such a publication.
Mikael Pawlo: WHAT IS THE MEANING OF NON-COMMERCIAL?
[...]
Commercial television is also available. Commercial television may not use
content that is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.0 license, that is rather evident.
It may use it, but just as with standard copyright, only through
obtaining permission from the author (which, as explained above, can be
sometimes difficult or impossible).
But may Swedish public service
television do it? The commercial channels to compete with public service
television over the public's attention. Further, commercial messages are
broadcasted even in public service, although not by using commercials, but
by using sponsored by--billboards and product placement. Is this the
kind of use that Creative Commons would like to endorse with its drafting?
The problem might be even worse. I read that Swedish public television is
financed, like the BBC in England, through a television license fee (and
not by fundraising like for example public broadcasting in the USA).
That makes it a commercial service that can be received only via
payment.
Probably, but I can not be certain, one is looking for a less commercial
environment. Perhaps a school or a strict hobby, in the basement,
not-for-profit environment.
That seems to be the main flaw in the non-commercial wording, a
confusion of non-commercial and non-profit. Most non-profit projects
are commercial in the sense that they charge money. That would even
apply to say, a teenage garage band that would play cover versions of
songs released under Creative Commons Licenses, but charge $2 entrance
fee to reimburse its transportation and rental expenses.
But even a
