Hi, you might have got this email because I bcc:ed you because you gave a talk at FOSDEM or operated the video camera there. I would like to inform you about a licence change I propose for those and other videos, and am highly interesting in your thoughts about this. Before FOSDEM, all videos were released under a MIT-style licence. I want to change this now, and release the fosdem videos and further ones - until we change this again - under the "by attribution"-licence, version 2.5, with the changes for scottish legislation. This sounds complicated, but the licence is simple to understand and IMHO better suited for video works than, for example, a MIT-style licence or the artistic licence, which I also considered. The URL for the licence is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland MJ Ray, who suggested the licence to me, answered my question about why the scottish version with: "Scottish law requires plain language, so Jonathan Mitchell QC removed the ambiguity from the attribution clause and unscrewed the anti-DRM clause. [..] I hope similar solutions will be in all 3.0 licences. You probably want to waive or override the s6.5 'sue me here' choice." Not sure how to deal with the s6.5 "sue me here" choice - creating a cc-2.5-by-scotland-debian-videoteam-licence doesn't look pretty nor sensible to me... so for now I would just use that licence as it is. FYI: ffmpeg and ffmpeg2theora can embed a licence URL and an author string in the video files, mencoder cant. The author of those files is usually the "FOOBAR videoteam". Thoughts ? Please reply to both mailinglists only, thanks. (Or privatly :) regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpVGBTRSppTv.pgp
Description: PGP signature