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

Re: [Debconf-video] Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...


On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:55, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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.

I dont. First it speaks about "software" not "videos" or "media". Second, I 
don't like the naming issue: it's not the "MIT-licence", it's the "videoteam 
licence MIT-style".

> I disagree.
> I'm not convinced that CC-by, even it didn't suffer its DFSG-freeness
> issues, would be better suited for videos.

Why ? And what has that to do with DFSG-freeness ?

(DFSG-freeness is important to me for this works, but I fail to see, what this 
has to do with videos. Or did you mean "those debian videos" ?)

> Just another reason why licensing works with a URL reference (rather
> than accompanying the work with the full license text) is really bad
> practice and should be discouraged as far as possible (rather than
> officialized, as CC did...): you *cannot* guarantee that the provided
> URL will (continue to) point to what you meant when you adopted the
> license...


But unless you distribute the videos as tar-archives (which you dont want :) 
you cannot include the licence with the video. Thats why I (additionally) 
want a URL.

And obviously I also want a URL I control. (Or s/I/videoteam/ but atm I'm 
doing the publishing work alone...)

> I'm not convinced that a work licensed under CC-by-2.5/scotland complies
> with the DFSG.
> Specifically:
> * Removing credit when requested to do so
> 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?
> Where's the DFSG that allow such a restriction?

Hmmm. Any other opinions on that ? 

> * 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...


> * Sue me in Scotland

/me nods.

> I recommend you against adopting or promoting this license.
> [...]
> > Please reply to both mailinglists only, thanks. (Or privatly :)
> Done.


	Holger (who is more confused now then before :)

Attachment: pgpL2rnjlV9Nt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: