Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
- From: Ben Finney <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:48:59 +1000
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20070327150004.GI6212@freenet.de> <460951E8.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <460BE4CC.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Terry Hancock <email@example.com> writes:
> The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works
> which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the
> work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works
> whose principle value is in how they are used.
That's a disctinction which may be interesting (certainly it's more
interesting than "creative"/"non-creative"). However, it's a
distionction which can only apply to the combination of a work *and* a
person appreciating it *and* the time at which they are
appreciating. If any of those change, the distinction can also change.
So it's not valid to make the distinction depend *solely* on the
work. Since a free license applies *only* to a work (i.e. it does not
distinguish based on who is receiving the work nor when they do so),
it's not a useful distinction to make between the types of licensing
required for different works.
\ "Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, |
`\ unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject |
_o__) unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat." -- Peter Sellers |