distribution of licenses
robmyers at mac.com
Mon Mar 7 08:19:11 EST 2005
On Monday, March 07, 2005, at 12:58PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>On Monday 07 March 2005 07:20 am, Greg London wrote:
>> It would fit. I don't understand why an author
>> would do it, and I really don't want to get into
>> a debate about "art for arts sake" versus
>> "argument ad lazarum", but it would fit.
"Art for art sake" is an aesthetic argument, not a financial one, so argument ad lazarum doesn't really fit. Like "software libre", "l'art pour l'art" doesn't stop you from charging for your work: it just guides the ethics of the creation of your work. The idea of the "starving artist" is a much better fit, and is indeed bogus.
Since most artists/writers/musicians don't make a living from their primary work as the public would understand it (paintings/novels/CDs), auto-NC might help build a community (or market, depending on how you look at it) for the work they do that *does* allow them to make a living But they'd have trouble accepting fees for shows, readings, etc. so possibly not :-) .
This is a different case from fan culture, where fans are always downstream of the original work and so will be sharing and sharing alike with downstream users.
>I just think the world is full of a wide variety of people who can have a wide
>variety of motivations, some of which we may consider oddball, but which
>still motivate them.
I'm slightly disturbed that being motivated by something other than money is considered oddball. The richest people I know are motivated by a love of business, for example. ;-)
>As an aside, if I license a work, CC BY-NC, what licenses can be put on
>derivatives? CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND?
Possibly a relicensing matrix on the CC site would be a useful resource?
More information about the cc-licenses