Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works > which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the > work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works > whose principle value is in how they are used.
That's a disctinction which may be interesting (certainly it's more interesting than "creative"/"non-creative"). However, it's a distionction which can only apply to the combination of a work *and* a person appreciating it *and* the time at which they are appreciating. If any of those change, the distinction can also change. So it's not valid to make the distinction depend *solely* on the work. Since a free license applies *only* to a work (i.e. it does not distinguish based on who is receiving the work nor when they do so), it's not a useful distinction to make between the types of licensing required for different works. -- \ "Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, | `\ unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject | _o__) unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat." -- Peter Sellers | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
