antlists <[email protected]> writes: > On 22/05/2020 13:26, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> IIUC, CC licences aim to protect against others making money from >> your work. How is "ASCAP not being happy" related to that? >> > >> Unless I'm mistaken, LilyPond (GNU) and CC belong to the "eco-system" >> where sharing is the norm (to enhance the common cultural pool) while >> making it hard for "free-riders". Using the tools offered by that alternate >> system, and then bow to the arguments of those who smear it seems a >> contradiction. >> > You're correct that GNU and CC belong to the eco-system where sharing > is the norm, but NEITHER have any objection to others making making > money (yes they do both object to free-riders). > > CC has an *optional* clause that forbids commercial activity (I use it > on my photos), and GNU forbids charging for THE SOFTWARE.
Uh, no? GNU allows you to charge whatever price you can get for the software. It does not allow you to charge _extra_ for the source code or for the right to retain a license under the GPL. Source code (or the right to it) and the license always have to be part of the sale. Companies like RedHat grew by _selling_ CDs with GNU software on them, at a price point where undercutting them with copies of their disks would not have been a compelling business proposition. But they still turned a profit from doing it well and at large scale. > But CC doesn't forbid commercial activity by default, and GNU permits > charging for services, such as supplying the software, supporting the > software, and anything like that. And selling CDs at arbitrary price point with GPLed GNU software on them. -- David Kastrup
