Re: Bug#550860: ITP: gnaughty -- downloader for adult content
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
> > > <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.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 [0])
> > 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 [0]. 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.
Mike
Reply to: