To be clear, if it was selling exceptions to a non-commercial clause, that
would be non-libre culture, and I don't support that. But if it's selling
exceptions to CC BY, that has no effect, and if it's selling exceptions to CC
BY-SA, it has the same effect as just using CC BY.
20-03-2015 02:37:59 onp...@riseup.net:
If all we use the CC-BY-SA license in our works, are
we giving the power
to
the big companies to make money using us?
This is a terrible mistake. Non-commercial licenses don't
put any
restrictions on big corporations that they aren't used to.
Thanks for your suggestions!
Anyhow, the CC clause is valid and i can use the song without the jamendo
commercial license, though nobody really knows what this exactly is.
Doesn't seem problematic. It's just an unnecessary alternative license in
this case.
i can use the song without the jamendo commercial license, though nobody
really knows what this exactly is.
Then it is a worthless license, since you can't safely assume any additional
permissions, which is the main purpose of Copyright licenses.
Thanks onpon for the link. It shows well supported arguments to the
discussion about the theme.
What do you think about the Jamendo's issue?
Hello to everybody here. Please, excuse my possible English mistakes.
Some years ago I found that situation on Jamendo. At the begining I was a bit
confused, but when I knew Amazon was printing and selling books from
Wikipedia, I saw the things from another perspective. I supose Jamendo is
The CC-BY is the most permissive of Creative Common license series (And it's
version 3.0 in this case). It's the first time that I open this web site, and
I didn't make an exhaustive or conclusive research, but at a glance, it seems
the site just puts the option to get a “commercial” license
If all we use the CC-BY-SA license in our works, are we giving the power to
the big companies to make money using us?
This is a terrible mistake. Non-commercial licenses don't put any
restrictions on big corporations that they aren't used to. Keep in mind,
they're used to having to pay
Hey everyone,
sorry for the non-trisquel related topic, but it's about free culture and
license stuff, so i hope it will be tolerated here.
For many songs, there is a get commercial license button next to it;
I can understand this if the normal license of the song has a non-commercial
part
I'm baffled. Their licensing page says nothing about licensing per se, only
pricing options.
A CC-BY would grant anyone commercial rights over the music, so why would
anyone pay?
The commercial license could be for producers that want the attribution
requirement waived. I am just guessing.
12 matches
Mail list logo
