Re: [Debconf-video] Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:55, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a
> > perfectly adequate license for videos.
>
> I dont. First it speaks about "software" not "videos" or "media".
You can always change what the license is talking about to be a
MIT-style license which is dealing with video/media (or better "the
work").
> But unless you distribute the videos as tar-archives (which you dont
> want :) you cannot include the licence with the video. Thats why I
> (additionally) want a URL.
Alongside the work is probably good enough in this case; although I
think that some of the formats enable you to include the
copyright/licensing information within them. [You'd know more about
that than I, though.]
> Hmmm. Any other opinions on that ?
We've been working with the CC on these particular issues; I'd
personally suggest[1] holding off on changing from a
non-controversially DFSG free license to one that is controversial
until these issues are dealt with. [In that discussion, the scottish
license came up as well, and while it is an improvement over the 2.5
CC licenses, it still has its share of warts.]
Don Armstrong
1: Can I request that any videos of my stunningly hideous visage be
made DFSG Free? ;-)
--
"...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX
is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the
Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses
with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program."
--The Usenet Oracle
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: