Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday 25 April 2008 10:15, Neal McBurnett wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:53:24AM +0300, Billy Cina wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> The purpose of the license is to prevent the material being used for >>> profit-seeking purposes. If you (or anyone else) is from a not-for-profit >>> institution or running community classes etc., then this material is 100% >>> intended for that. Charging students minimal fees to cover expenses is >>> also ok. >>>
I'm not so sure that charging fees is alright. That seems to be a grey area for Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses, from what I've read. It's not clear whether not-for-profit use that involves money transfer is commercial or not. Creative Commons does not define commercial use, so this is very unclear. >> <snip/> >> >> E.g. I would love to see big enterprise users using this for training >> their people, even though it would be for-profit. And I would love >> for them to base their products on Ubuntu (e.g. a point-of-sale >> product) and use this to train their customers in how to use Ubuntu, >> even though they would charge for that training. >> >> The point is they would still have to share modifications, and we >> would all benefit - both the training community, and the whole Ubuntu >> user and developer community - because it would be essentially a >> win-win-win. >> > > If this were packaged for inclusion in Ubuntu it would have to go into > Multiverse because it does not carry a free license. It seems rather counter > productive to license training materials more restrictively than the > distribution. > > I agree. What's wrong with commercial use anyways? Doesn't commercial use help further the goals of Ubuntu? A Creative Commons Non-Commercial license is decidedly *not* like the GPL, because you can't make a profit from any changes you make, services you provide, work you do, etc. The Definition of Free Cultural Works [1], modelled after the free software definition, clearly allows for commercial reuse, just like the definition of free software. A non-commercial license is non-free. What's wrong with adopting a free license for a free software training guide? A Creative Commons BY-SA license, or the GNU Free Documentation license would be much more appropriate. [1] http://freedomdefined.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
