Sorry, didn't word that well. Free software definition states anyone who receives or copies the software should not be stopped from selling it, as part of being able to modify and redistribute. The GPL in turn does not stop you from selling copies.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
"Free software" does not mean "noncommercial." A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
There is no need for "teeth", because the original content is already freely available, and so presumably would be your "new" form or service - unless after you make changes and improvements, and then stick on DRM to try and force it to be closed off, but even then the wanders of the internet and piracy guarantee that they'll be freely available in some form :)
GPL needs teeth because software is slightly different - there's 2 components involved, source code and the binary executable. GPL requires you re-publish source as this is what is required to be able to properly modify and improve software, and publish under the same licence.
If Mike was still genuinely worried, he could use a Creative Commons licence for the works on this site that apply the same principle - that you re-publish derivative works under the same licence.
That assumes that a sight that simply takes content from another site is really genuinely viable - that people will not simply just go straight to the source, or simply use your site as a reference - not actually replacing Techdirts views, but supplementing them and perhaps increasing them by linking and cataloguing the work.
Assuming of course you put this into practice, and aren't simply trying to get a rise out of people, or thinking you're showing us up by getting us and Mike that this would be OK - As if affirming what we've already said is somehow showing us up.
This is somewhat similar to what the GPL software license does - it stipulates that when software is allowed to be distributed and modified, so to should the right for the copier or recipient to sell it on be upheld.
There's no restriction on re-selling the software, even if the original is free, or is allowed to be distributed freely.
The word disruptive is used here - is the article referring specifically referring to the concept of disruptive innovation I wander?
The concept pretty much explains in far more detail part of what was mentioned (need for growth for example), but frames it in a way which shows that often the things that lead to decline in certain situations are very much rational decisions on part of external pressures.
Great musicians are the same thing: They make the music and the vision, and they leave the business part of the business people. It doesn't mean to be ignorant, it just means not to make being a business person your "real" job. The real job is making music.
It seems like you haven't read this post at all. Mike was advocating that at some point, artists who want to make money off of their work in whatever way inevitably come face to face with a choice: Learning things about how to make a sustainable business, or getting someone who does know.
Either way, the point is it's better to know at least something about the business side, otherwise you leave yourself open to people who manipulate you to squeeze as much money out of you without the hint of a fair deal, or you never turn your creations into something you can live off of.
Why is that so objectionable? There are 24 hours a day, 7 days in a week, 365 days in a year, and generally a minimum of 50 or so years in a lifetime. That's plenty of time, and you don't even have to be some business guru or go to Harvard. Post on Facebook and twitter, charge a few quid more than it costs to order/make the tshirts and that's that.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: GPL
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: GPL
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Really...
Assuming of course you put this into practice, and aren't simply trying to get a rise out of people, or thinking you're showing us up by getting us and Mike that this would be OK - As if affirming what we've already said is somehow showing us up.
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
GPL
There's no restriction on re-selling the software, even if the original is free, or is allowed to be distributed freely.
On the post: Understanding The Decline And Fall Of The Major Record Labels
Disruptive Innovation
The concept pretty much explains in far more detail part of what was mentioned (need for growth for example), but frames it in a way which shows that often the things that lead to decline in certain situations are very much rational decisions on part of external pressures.
On the post: Getting Past The 'But Artists Should Just Be Artists' Myth
Re: Thinking past the end of my nose
It seems like you haven't read this post at all. Mike was advocating that at some point, artists who want to make money off of their work in whatever way inevitably come face to face with a choice: Learning things about how to make a sustainable business, or getting someone who does know.
Either way, the point is it's better to know at least something about the business side, otherwise you leave yourself open to people who manipulate you to squeeze as much money out of you without the hint of a fair deal, or you never turn your creations into something you can live off of.
Why is that so objectionable? There are 24 hours a day, 7 days in a week, 365 days in a year, and generally a minimum of 50 or so years in a lifetime. That's plenty of time, and you don't even have to be some business guru or go to Harvard. Post on Facebook and twitter, charge a few quid more than it costs to order/make the tshirts and that's that.
Next >>