license discussion

[Mattn]

that is no problem - but "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" is not gpl compatible - would it be ok to take http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

[kOba]

ok understood, I change the license and put the package 

Wait a minute, but this license does not inhibit the marketing of the file. And I'd rather prevent it.
Am I wrong?

[Mattn]

the gpl does not prohibit it, too - ufoai was even sold on ebay already. the gpl allows this (and we, too)

[Crystan]

the gpl does not prohibit it, too - ufoai was even sold on ebay already. the gpl allows this (and we, too)

Wait what? Are we totally nuts? Free & Opensource - okay - but allowing some wannabes to make money with our game is just crazy. On the other side - the people who bought it, have it deserved that way.

[Mattn]

it is not - the gpl allows this and this mean free. but please let's not hijack this thread - open another one if you wanna discuss this.

[kOba]

I agree with opening a new tread for this question!

[Flying Steel]

I never understood why so many of my fellow artists are sent into a mental tailspin by the idea that someone, somewhere out there could use your GPL content to scam a handful of really dumb people out of probably insignificant money. You did the work for free and thousands of people have enjoyed it for free, perhaps thereby becoming inspired to make free contributions that you in turn will enjoy. Who cares what happens beyond this?

Either make a piece of artwork to make money to help support yourself or make it to share; don't worry about the irrelevant in-between.

[kOba]

don't worry about the irrelevant in-between.

I do not understand what it is (forgive me my English is to google)

[H-Hour]

My two cents: having commercially compatible licenses is an important part of the use-and-reuse philosophy of open source. We live -- and will live -- in a mixed ecology of commercial and free software. And the interaction between the two continues to benefit FLOSS development. If that means someone somewhere turns a profit on something I made, that's fine.

[Crystan]

Dont get me wrong, i was only shocked that ppl are selling/buying a freegame.

[Flying Steel]

I do not understand what it is (forgive me my English is to google)

Basically what I meant was-- if you don't intend to make money off of a work of art you have done, then don't concern yourself with whether or not someone else might make money from it. Instead just think about what your goal is in creating and offering it the open source community and make sure that personal goal is met.

[kurja]

My two cents: having commercially compatible licenses is an important part of the use-and-reuse philosophy of open source. We live -- and will live -- in a mixed ecology of commercial and free software. And the interaction between the two continues to benefit FLOSS development. If that means someone somewhere turns a profit on something I made, that's fine.

how open source projects benefit from their content being used for profit by someone else?

[Flying Steel]

They don't benefit from it. But now ask yourself the opposite--

How are open source projects harmed by their content being used for profit by someone else? They aren't harmed either.


Should we stop breathing because the carbon dioxide we exhale will most likely end up profiting some plant-life far away which we don't own? What if that plant-life happens to be someone else's wheat field and he makes a profit from it?

[headdie]

Should we stop breathing because the carbon dioxide we exhale will most likely end up profiting some plant-life far away which we don't own? What if that plant-life happens to be someone else's wheat field and he makes a profit from it?

Certainly an interesting point.

The difference here I think is the background, when I breath out I dont care what happens to that gas, it is just an automatic process that has to happen.  On the other hand when I create an asset for an open source project with my own time and effort with the understanding that the results of the project are free to all, and some one profits from that project without consulting me then I would be annoyed to say the least.

[kurja]

They don't benefit from it. But now ask yourself the opposite--

How are open source projects harmed by their content being used for profit by someone else? They aren't harmed either.

True, but one has to wonder what this was supposed to mean

commercial and free software. And the interaction between the two continues to benefit FLOSS development

as making money by selling someone else's open source work is so obviously, well, wrong, and I don't see anyone else than the profit-maker benefiting from it.