Molly White writes on the conundrum facing people who publish open access or free context: its use by companies in ways never intended by the authors: their content packaged into an ebook and sold on Amazon, or their code used to create a billion-dollar software company; or their art packaged into an NFT. Now (if I may say so) I have always expected this sort of thing, which is why I have always used and defended the use of the 'non-commercial' clause. White just sloughs off this response; "(and thus, non-free)". She says, instead, that we "we need to reframe the conversation to 'wait, not only like that' or 'wait, not in ways that threaten open access itself'." Well, yeah. But that's exactly what commercial use does. That's why I argue that 'non-commercial' is more free than the so-called 'free' licenses without restrictions. Image: Wikipedia.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
