[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...

"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message [🔎] 20060308235550.5cfecd45.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:[🔎] 20060308235550.5cfecd45.frx@firenze.linux.it...
and that was a clearly DFSG-free choice.
I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a perfectly
adequate license for videos.

True that does seem strange.

As a sidenote, the URL you quoted points to the "license summary" of

Strange. When I first went to that page the deed was in Korean. This was due to a faulty cookie, so things went to normal after I deleted it. The korean page had the right link, as do all three english pages when chosen from the list at the top. So the problem is only in the main deed page when displayed in English. Quite odd really.


The end of clause 2.3 states:
"But, if what you are publishing or distributing is a Derivative Work or
a Collective Work, you must remove any of these credits if you are asked
to do so by the Licensor and if it is practicable to do so."

How requiring that credit be purged from a Collective Work or a
Derivative Work upon request from an Original Author can pass the DFSG?
Although the clause is greatly improved (with respect to CC-by-2.0
international version), I still see a restriction in distributing
aggregates (DFSG#1) and derivatives (DFSG#3).
Why cannot I claim that my derived work is based on the original work,
if it's true?

First of all that clause was intended for certain specific instances.

Let us say Bob creates an image of a desk, and licences it under cc-by-sa.
Charlie uses photoshop to create a pornographic image (office sex?) based on bob's desk image. Bob does not want his name associated with a pornographic image, due to possible damage to his reputation.
Bob can invoke that clause.

There are very few instances in the software world that would be equivlent. The only case I can think of is if somebody edits a piece of software you created to create something that is so crappy/buggy that you do
not want to be associated with it.

Where's the DFSG that allow such a restriction?
You refer to DFSG #1 and #3.
While #1 may be construed to prevent *any* restriction from being placed on selling/distributing a collective work, that is obviously not what the clasue was intended to mean. If it was read that way then GPL v2 would be non-free
because it requires source distribution.

Where's the DFSG that allows a licence to require source distribution with binary distribution? (Hint: There is none. It is allowed because it does not contractict any of the other DFSGs).

Now lets look at DFSG #3:
The license must allow modifications and derived works,
It does allow those.
and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
It does allow that.

There is nothing in #3 to prevent restrictions on modified works.
We allow the restriction of maintaing copyright notices, so a restriction
of removing copyright notices on request.

This restiction only in the Scotland version only requires removal of attribution in the form found in the copyright message (or equivlent).

Therefore #3 does not prevent that clause.

(Also do remember that unlike with the generic licence it does not require removal of generic references like "the original author".)
* Any comparable authorship credit

This issue is still present, as clause 2.3e states, in part, "placing
that credit in the same place, and at least as prominently, as any
comparable authorship credit."
See Evan Prodromou's summary for details about this issue...

That does seem potentially problematic.

* Sue me in Scotland

Clause 6.5 states, in part:
"the parties accept the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Scotland
to decide any action or claim directed against the Licensor."
This is a choice of venue, but it is limited to lawsuits directed
against the *Licensor*, and so could be harmless for the *Licensee*.
It is a major inconvenience for any *Licensor* that does not live or do
business in Scotland, though.
Personally, as an author, I would never license a work under terms that
say that anyone who wants to sue me, must accept the venue to be in
Scotland: I live in Italy, I don't want to be forced to travel to
Scotland to defend myself!!!

Well remember that the two parties can agree to litigate in annother location.
That is what would most likely happen unless the Lincensee has
a reason to prefer this venue.

In cases where neither party would normally be subject to the juristiction of Scotland (although the licensee does not agree to an alternative venue), then this should be easy to avoid. The beginnings of a lawsuit are generally performed via mail. Durring this stage simply ask the court to ORDER that the litigation be performed outside Scotland (without nameing a specific alternate venue).

The court probably grant this request for an order, as most courts are not terribly interested in having cases that do not involve somebody normally under their jursidiction if for no other
reason than the difficulty in enforcing an order.

I do think it would be a problem if the licensee is in scotland and wishes to have the lawsuit remain
in scotland.

Reply to: