> If a license term is subject to that much ambiguity,
then it is clearly
> a BAD license term and should be immediately deprecated
and removed from
> publication.
I've found that this has always been a problem with "no
commercial use"
free of charge software. For some, commercial use is
explicit sale, for
some it even includes sale for media and copying costs, with
reasonable
profit, for some it includes use within a business. Most
licence authors
fail to clearly distinguish when they go down the NC route.
(Software that
can't have distribution costs recovered is unlikely to get
used much.)
> sell it". Of course, this gets dicey when indirect
value through
> advertising is derived. But most users appear to
believe that *some*
> advertising-sponsored channels are acceptable.
I think a lot of people don't really consider the business
model of their
hosting provider and just think that they are getting free
web space.
The only person that can actually distribute the strictest
interpretation
of "no commercial use" without making a loss is
the originator.
There are, of course, at least two different motivations for
applying
no commercial use restrictions. One is that the orignator
doesn't believe
in the making of money from their creativity. The other is
that the do
believe in making money, but want themselves to be the only
people that
can make that money. In the second case, distribution by
the author
can amount to permitted use in advertising, whereas a
recipient cannot
use the material in an advertising context.
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
|
