Ken wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:05 am
Josh wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:35 am
Neto wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 9:04 am
He isn't charging for the content, only for the filtration process. The content itself is still technically distributed freely. Essentially (as I understand it) his customers are paying for the EXCLUSION of content, not for that which is included. But I guess you could take it up with him directly, and see how he responds.
In my own business, I install a lot of free programs. I charge nothing at all for the content of the program, only for my time to do the installation. He is charging for his time in doing the filtration. A lawyer might see it differently - I am certainly not one, nor do I know the ins & outs of copyright law.
I guess my question for anyone in your position is whether the service he provides is of value - that is, do we want to encourage, or prevent such services.
What he is providing is a “derived work” which is clearly defined in the licence.
Basically, if he wants me to respect his licence, he should respect the licence I gave my work away to him with first. Is that not reasonable?
This is semantics.
He isn't selling a "process". He is selling a finished work that is simply a slightly revised version of the open-source Wikipedia.
If I understand Josh correctly. He is free to do so under the Wikipedia license. But he gains no copyright rights over the revised product he created. Which means others are also free to copy and distribute it or label it as they see fit. Because it is not actually his work.
If changing someone else's work entitles you to rights over it then all the next person would have to do is change one single word of his version to claim it as their own.
In fact, the only actual NEW content he has created is the blank spaces where the words of others used to be. So he could claim as his own a couple of pages of black spaces that he created. But he can't claim any ownership over any of the words of others.
He doesn't claim ownership over ANY of the words or thoughts reflected in the resulting material. What he is selling is the filtering process - his service work (and of course the external hard disk drive that it is on). But as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot determine the legality of any of this. I just know that there are people who appreciate the work he has done to provide this resource, and are perfectly willing to both pay for that service, and to respect his request to not share it all freely. It really comes down to an exchange of payment for service performed. If he did all of this separately for each individual it would cost a great deal more for each customer.
Take my own business as an example. I create a standard locked-down version of Windows, using only tools and procedures that are already a part of the OS (or made possible by manipulating processes already native to the OS, such as Registry Editor hacks). I then create a working image of that preliminary work, and 'sell' locked-down systems that are basically 'cloned' from that initial image. I do re-sell the Windows OS license along with my product, the same as does every other system manufacturer, Dell, HP, etc. I also install a number of open-source programs on these systems, but the cost of the complete system is not in any way derived from any real or perceived value of those programs. (There are programs that I do not install on the image itself, but rather only upon individual request, simply because the respective license agreement, while allowing for free use, prohibits bundling it with any product which is being sold.) Even though the Windows OS license makes up part of the cost basis for the systems I sell, I am not selling the OS itself - all I am selling in that regard is my service time, an application of my personal expertise. Some key solutions I found on the internet, posted by people who are putting it up there to help people, to gain a following, or whatever happens to be their private motivation. I have also used youtube videos to learn how to deal with appliance repair work, etc. But I think that everyone has already decided on their opinion of the situation being discussed here, so I suspect that there is no point in continuing to respond. I think I've adequately explained my own understanding of the situation, and that was my only motive here; and, perhaps, to pose some probing questions, none of which have received any direct response.