[Fwd: Re: Developemnt and use - Training manual]
balleyne at crucible.net
Fri Apr 25 22:01:52 UTC 2008
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday 25 April 2008 10:15, Neal McBurnett wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:53:24AM +0300, Billy Cina wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> The purpose of the license is to prevent the material being used for
>>> profit-seeking purposes. If you (or anyone else) is from a not-for-profit
>>> institution or running community classes etc., then this material is 100%
>>> intended for that. Charging students minimal fees to cover expenses is
>>> also ok.
I'm not so sure that charging fees is alright. That seems to be a grey
area for Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses, from what I've read.
It's not clear whether not-for-profit use that involves money transfer
is commercial or not.
Creative Commons does not define commercial use, so this is very unclear.
>> E.g. I would love to see big enterprise users using this for training
>> their people, even though it would be for-profit. And I would love
>> for them to base their products on Ubuntu (e.g. a point-of-sale
>> product) and use this to train their customers in how to use Ubuntu,
>> even though they would charge for that training.
>> The point is they would still have to share modifications, and we
>> would all benefit - both the training community, and the whole Ubuntu
>> user and developer community - because it would be essentially a
> If this were packaged for inclusion in Ubuntu it would have to go into
> Multiverse because it does not carry a free license. It seems rather counter
> productive to license training materials more restrictively than the
I agree. What's wrong with commercial use anyways? Doesn't commercial
use help further the goals of Ubuntu? A Creative Commons Non-Commercial
license is decidedly *not* like the GPL, because you can't make a profit
from any changes you make, services you provide, work you do, etc.
The Definition of Free Cultural Works , modelled after the free
software definition, clearly allows for commercial reuse, just like the
definition of free software. A non-commercial license is non-free.
What's wrong with adopting a free license for a free software training
A Creative Commons BY-SA license, or the GNU Free Documentation license
would be much more appropriate.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss