As said in an earlier post, this isn't about money. Nor is it about putting something out with the intention of helping others. It is about taking something posted on youtube to help others and selling it for gain, regardless of amount, without consent or recognition. Please don't bring this down to a level of being about money.
Do you really not see the contradiction here? What you're saying is that it's about SELLING IT, which is about MONEY.
Perhaps Mike would have been flattered and agreed to this had someone had the courtesy to contact him about using his work before putting it for sale on ebay.
This is not about flattery. All I'm saying is that if he has released the materials under CCL or GPL, he is
saying that it's okay, before hand, and that there is no need to then ask him. That's what the license does. It answers that question.
I do understand where you are coming from Tad, but surely even an academic would like to have some recognition for his work ? Had Mike Lynch not introduced himself on each of the lessons there would have been no knowing who he was, unless he was recognised.
IF he has released the work under GPL or CCL, honestly, I think that NOT altering it is the best option. In other words-- in the process of noncommercially distributing another person's material that they have released under a license that allows for noncommercial distribution, I think it's more respectful to not add things to it. Adding titles, or what have you, would be altering the work. IF he had not identified himself, then he would have not been identified, but he DID, so that seems to be rather moot to me. If he had, the distributer might have felt more compelled to make it clear in other ways. This is all speculation.
Another vaild point, if you have made that decision to release your work for this purpose. For those that haven't yet made that decision or chose not to release their work in this manner, does it still apply ?
No. That's where copyright comes in. All I'm talking about is that, if the assertion that the seller has made here, that the creator released the materials under GPL,
if that is true, you're getting upset about something that the content producer has explicitly okayed. I'm just saying.
My last thought on this is how many of us seriously believe that this cd of Mikes lessons were being sold for the altruistic reason of putting his work out there for others to see ? I am sure that had that genuinely been the case his name would have been plastered all over the listing and on the cd - or at least mentioned 'somewhere'.
Not necessarily. Bootleg DVDs from Chinatown often do look like that. Legitimate, legal DVDs of Linux distros often do not. The thing about taking the commercial incentive away is that a lot of times-- not always, but often-- people get lazy. In general, when something is not being made for profit, it is less well packaged than something with a 3000% markup from the cost of manufacture.
---------------------------------
All I'm saying is that there's a lot of assumptions being made here. And that assumptions can be dangerous. Do your due diligence, and put your rightous anger on hold until you have. Anger's not good for you. Contact Mike, see how he's licensed his work. You might be raising your blood pressure over nothing.
Or it might be as bad as you're assuming. All I'm saying is that until you get the word from the person who produced the work in the first place, there's no point being so full of indignation, etc. There are possible explanations where,
and again, except for the part that it was auctioned and not sold as "buy it now," although personally I think that *could* have been a legitimate mistake or misunderstanding-- but yeah, there are possible explanations where there's no need for you to get angry on behalf of other people's Intelectual Property Rights.