3 ms·

Here's the point of disagreement, then: I don't think YouTube prohibits "non-free" licenses, and I don't see how their terms of service can be construed as such

Here's the point of disagreement, then: I don't think YouTube prohibits "non-free" licenses, and I don't see how their terms of service can be construed as such. I also don't see anything that would prevents users from contacting content creators for licensing inquiries. Could you point out where in the terms these exist?

rjf72 8y ago
YouTube itself refuses to agree to free licensing agreements with content creators. It forces them into a non-free agreement, or nothing. This is done, in no small part, to deter competition. The term is 4H, "You agree not to solicit, for commercial purposes, any users of the Service with respect to their Content.". That would include licensing requests. Commercial purpose does not mean e.g. only for pay. It has a broad definition that would almost certainly include a peer to peer company reaching out to content creators to try to host their content, even for free. Once again, that is their exclusively for anti-competitive purposes as I doubt even users that just want to share their content with no expectation over remuneration would opt in to having any and all proposals preemptively killed off.