Re: [Debconf-video] Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
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..
Cheers,
Silvia.
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadentplace.org.uk>
Subject: [Debconf-video] Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
To:
debconf-video@lists.debconf.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Message-ID: <[🔎] 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
licence:
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.
--
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 : http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/list/debconf-video.html/attachments/20060515/7e542c78/attachment.pgp
Reply to: