Timeline for How can sound assets be "license and royalty free" but also "non-commercial use only"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 22:46 | comment | added | supercat | I suspect what the phrase "license-free" is intended to mean is that once one has purchased the collection, one can use items therein without having to acquire a separate license for each individual use. While the phrase "license-free" isn't entirely accurate, I can't think of any way of expressing such a concept nearly as concisely. | |
| Jan 4, 2021 at 11:42 | comment | added | joshstrike | As a coder from the hoi palloi, this stuff can be confusing. Obviously it's better to include a license with your open source work. But when you want to let average people know that you are allowing them to use your software for free, you tend to minimize the idea that they'll have to pay royalties. On the other hand you want to make sure it isn't used commercially without your consent. Throw in a marketing department with no background in software or law and give them a few conflicting requirements and you have a really bad EULA. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 21:03 | comment | added | user45623 | Then I guess the question becomes how a court would rule on it, but frankly I'd rather buy from a company that understands how licensing works and is straightforward about their products. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 20:59 | vote | accept | user45623 | ||
| Sep 17, 2016 at 0:27 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |