Re: Bug#550860: ITP: gnaughty -- downloader for adult content
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:28:14 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:18:33PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:13:10 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:57:19 -0400, James Vega wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Michael Gilbert
> > > > <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:27:25 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > > > >> On mer, 2009-10-14 at 16:23 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > > >> > the key litmus test is: does the application depend solely on non-free
> > > > >> > information to function properly. these google applications fail
> > > > >> > this test because the licensing of the data itself is at the user's
> > > > >> > discretion. hence, they are permitted in main.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't really think clive use data licensed at the user discretion.
> > > > >
> > > > > i agree, clive only functions properly when it has access to the
> > > > > non-free content on youtube, so it would pass my litmus test, and should
> > > > > be moved to contrib.
> > > >
> > > > What makes youtube content (or any of the media content from the many
> > > > other sites clive supports) automatically non-free? Doesn't it depend
> > > > on how the media's author has decided to license their work?
> > >
> > > if i recall, youtube has a specific usage agreement (i found )
> > > applicable to all of its content, which for all intents and purposes
> > > would likely be declared non-free if reviewed for dfsg-freeness. hence,
> > > access to youtube content through youtube itself would be considered
> > > non-free due to that usage agreement; even though dfsg-free content may
> > > be hosted there.
> > here are the terms of service for youtube . section 4A alone would
> > be sufficient to declare the service non-free.
> Unless there is a clause saying that no youtube user shall license
> her work under a free license, I see no problem.
IANAL (I Am Not a Lawyer), but from a legal point of view, the rights
granted to you by youtube for content available on their site are
independent of the rights that could be granted to you directly by the
content's copyright holder. these terms of service apply as soon as
you access the site and make very clear non-free restrictions on all
"User Submissions" regardless of the license choices of the original
also, according to term 6C, the original copyright holder gave up a
long list of their inherent rights to youtube. hence, the content
there does not come with the same set of rights as if you had accessed
the content directly from the copyright holder.