3 ms·
If you look at the assets ... it seems all of it still is CC-BY licenced, even if you need a subscription to download them. So free as in speech, not as in bee
by a-saleh 3y ago
If you look at the assets ... it seems all of it still is CC-BY licenced, even if you need a subscription to download them.
So free as in speech, not as in beer, I guess?
- remram 3y agoIn what sense is it "free as in speech"? I don't understand this analogy. Freedom of speech refers to not having to fear retaliation for speaking. By that definition, Autodesk Maya is free as in speech, as in Autodesk doesn't get prosecuted for selling it (under all-rights-reserved license, EULA, and yearly subscription).
- a-saleh 3y agoI am vaguely quoting open-source advocates. It is in the actual license of those assets - you gain access to their sources and you are allowed to share them under Creative Commons license. You could think of it as a next step beyond DRM-free. Specifics can vary - CC licenses can range from indistinguishable from public domain, through you-can-modify-only-if-you-share to fairly restrictive share-don't-modify. Some want you to credit the author, some don't. But - most importantly - there is nothing about preventing author to sell their work with that kind of license. So the license makes it free as in free-speech - you can share it as much as you like, not as in free-beer - that you are entitled to receive the thing.