4 ms·
Long ago, in the LaTeX world, people first licensed stuff as "not for sale" (or even "not for sale to the military"). Then someone wanted to publish a "How to
by jimhefferon 8y ago
Long ago, in the LaTeX world, people first licensed stuff as "not for sale" (or even "not for sale to the military"). Then someone wanted to publish a "How to Use LaTeX" book, commercially but basically at cost, with a CD in the back having a complete collection of software. They were faced with being unable to do so because some of the software was licensed as not-for-sale. That seems counter productive, to me.
That even applies to books: I've gotten a good number of inquiries from college bookstores asking if instructors can sell copies. They are worried that money is changing hands, when students buy a physical copy, and I am not getting any of it. I am glad those folks are looking out for my rights, but my point here is that "you can't sell it" is a more complex restriction than at least I (in no way a lawyer) thought when I first started doing this.
- greglindahl 8y agoThe CC "share-alike" option and the CC "non-commercial" option are orthogonal for exactly this reason.
- rectang 8y agoEven so, complying with share-alike licenses is more costly than complying with attribution-based licenses. Consider what it takes to rectify license violation (either inadvertent or deliberate). Officially, the full force of copyright law can be brought down, but historically neither tradition wants that -- they just want to bring violators into compliance for future distribution. For share-alike, derivative works must be released under the share-alike license, which can affect business strategy. For attribution-based, adding a few lines of notification suffices.
- andrepd 8y agoDo you know what would be even more costly? Not having the free content in the first place, ffs. Quit whining just because you have to comply with the licence imposed by someone who is giving up their work for free.