Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?
On Saturday 27 September 2008 05:34:33 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean Kellogg <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > > ATTENTION!!
> > > > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> > > > them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> > > > ask for permission.
> > >
> > > Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
> > > mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.
> > How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this
> > license in your analysis
> I didn't "skip over it"; I'm taking the following "this means" as an
> explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says "foo
> means bar", I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring
> my own wishful meanings to it.
If we are going to apply a technical reading to an obviously non-technically drafted license (which judges don't do) then let's observe the fact that the second sentence does not contain any indication that it is an exclusive definition of what the preceding sentence means. There is no need to bring wishful meanings, just a dash of common sense.
> > > Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
> > > reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.
> > Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part.
> I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that
> first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of
> redistribution and deriving modified works.
What part of "any context you like" fails to make it clear that redistribution and derivative works are covered by the already very liberal terms of the first sentence?