zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Jan 22 22:24:59 EST 2012
On Sunday 22 January 2012 21:27:04 Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:09 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 January 2012 15:58:33 you wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> >> > Go to the US and buy 10,000 copies of a dvd movie that has not yet
> >> > been released on dvd in England. Take those copies to England and try
> >> > and sell them there. Or take them to England, give them to an English
> >> > merchant and let him try to sell them.
> >> No thanks.
> > Well, from what I have read here and there, I would take it that this
> > would be illegal in today's scheme of things.
> Illegal under whose law?
Couldn't tell you that. Just an impression I got from seeing various things
over the years. Perhaps a vague memory here of UK folks not being able to
order books or cds or dvds from amazon US? Or perhaps the otehr way around?
US folks not being able to buy from amazon uk? If this memory is anywhere
near accurate, it was not because amazon did not want to take their custom.
> >> > Oh, I agree that NC licenses are the pits. But I seriously don't agree
> >> > that copyright is great.
> >> But you're willing to use it to force people to share?
> > I view it as using it to negate its effects.
> I thought you wanted to use it to force people to share source code.
> That's more than just using it to negate its effects.
What gave you that idea?
The GPL and AGPL already do this. I have no desire to see this happen in the
cc realm until I can see super clean definitions on what source is in the
non-code realm. And perhaps not even then in all cases.
I am certainly not pushing for a source code requirement in 4.x.
all the best,
More information about the cc-community