Comments on: Why I use a non-commercial license. http://eco101.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/why-i-use-a-non-commercial-license/ ecoanarchist rantings from newcastle, australia Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:51:30 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Oliver Coleman http://eco101.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/why-i-use-a-non-commercial-license/#comment-2574 Oliver Coleman Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:21:55 +0000 http://eco101.wordpress.com/?p=44#comment-2574 "arguably recuperating costs would put the price of some products out of some people’s reach, however not to do so would hardly be sustainable for the distributor, and would finally destroy the supply line entirely": I think this gets to (one) crux of the problem: what is meant by recuperating costs? if it's simply materials (or 'net access, etc), and not time, then the supply line might also fail (more likely for some things than others, such as niche requirements) because no one may have the time or inclination to produce the material unless they're being compensated for their time. I agree that it doesn't seem reasonable to make a profit selling someone else's information (whether it's taking explicitly open-source material or pinching a scientists idea and patenting it), but this doesn't address the case of modification of material. However, as far as an NC clause being unreasonable, those who want to make profit (small or large, or simply to cover time spent or more) from some form of information can simply produce their own information and use whatever license they like with it. “arguably recuperating costs would put the price of some products out of some people’s reach, however not to do so would hardly be sustainable for the distributor, and would finally destroy the supply line entirely”: I think this gets to (one) crux of the problem: what is meant by recuperating costs? if it’s simply materials (or ‘net access, etc), and not time, then the supply line might also fail (more likely for some things than others, such as niche requirements) because no one may have the time or inclination to produce the material unless they’re being compensated for their time.

I agree that it doesn’t seem reasonable to make a profit selling someone else’s information (whether it’s taking explicitly open-source material or pinching a scientists idea and patenting it), but this doesn’t address the case of modification of material.

However, as far as an NC clause being unreasonable, those who want to make profit (small or large, or simply to cover time spent or more) from some form of information can simply produce their own information and use whatever license they like with it.

]]>