On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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
[...]
> Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings?
It seems to make the recordings to comply with the DFSG.
However, I would prefer not seeing the term "recording" in the license.
A more general term such as "work" would be better suited, IMHO.
Why?
Because permission to modify is granted by the license (and that is
essential in complying with the DFSG, of course!) and hence people will
be able to modify those recordings, even to the point where they stop
qualifying as "recordings".
For instance I can extract a screenshot from the recording and
distribute it as a desktop wallpaper. At that point the derivative work
is not a "recording" anymore, but an image, I would say.
[...]
> 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).
I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft.
It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's
definitely a non-copyleft license.
Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpoUBveNdTZy.pgp
Description: PGP signature