Re: [Debconf-video] Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
I see. Maybe it would be easiest then to pick the one license out of the CC lot that is deemed DFSG 'Free' compliant and to promote and support that one? It's just that the content community has really embraced CC.
On 5/18/06, Scott Dier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Many have feelings against creative commons because not all variants (or
all?) are DFSG 'Free'.
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Why don't you choose a creative commons license? It's a widely
> acknowledged licensing scheme and if you use
e.g. cc by-sa v2.5
> you are more compatible
> with other content out there and combinations with other open content
> are more easily possible.
> Creting your own content license is undesirable just like creating your
> own open source software license because it inhibits combining content
> from different sources.
> Just my 2c worth..
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100
> From: Ben Hutchings <email@example.com
> Subject: [Debconf-video] Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20060515023411.GQ6357@decadentplace.org.uk">
> <mailto:[🔎] 20060515023411.GQ6357@decadentplace.org.uk">[🔎] 20060515023411.GQ6357@decadentplace.org.uk>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings
> (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X
> Here's the text:
> Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without
> restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
> transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
> copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording
> is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or
> substantial portions thereof.
> THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
> OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
> WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING.
> Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings?
> I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating
> to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that
> would cover "transcoding"?
> Are there loopholes by which someone could legally remove the
> copyright notice and permission notice?
> The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video
> means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali
> (but without any mention of a preferred form). Does anyone on the
> video team see this as a problem?
> Ben Hutchings
> Humour is the best antidote to reality.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> Url :
> Debconf-video mailing list
Scott Dier <
CS/IT Systems Staff