Hi, 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... Right. 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... URL ? > * 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. Thanks. regards, Holger (who is more confused now then before :)
Attachment:
pgpL2rnjlV9Nt.pgp
Description: PGP signature