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

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

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 20:59:37 -0500 Joe Smith wrote:

> "Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message 
> [🔎] 20060308235550.5cfecd45.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:[🔎] 20060308235550.5cfecd45.frx@firenze.linux.it...
> -------FIRST---------
> >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.

Let's say under CC-by-2.5/scotland, which is the license we're talking

> 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.

I can write a program and someone else could create a pornographic
program based on mine. For instance my program could be a graphical
adventure game and it could be turned into a pornographic one.
Other examples can be made...

The problem seems to exist in the program world, too: still, I don't see
a "purge credit when asked to do so" clause in DFGS-free licenses that
many people happily adopt for programs they write...

> >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.

Yes, we allow some restrictions, but only for good reasons (as in
copyleft licenses).
I'm not sure there's good reason to accept a restriction that prevent me
from claiming that my work is based on the original author's one, when
it's true and accurate.
In the pornographic image case you mentioned above, an accurate credit
would be "based on the desk image, which is Copyright 2006 Bob".
I cannot think of a reason why this could harm Bob's reputation...

Moreover, can I really purge copyright notices, even when the copyright
holder him/herself asks me to do so?
Isn't it a violation of copyright laws, at least in some jurisdictions?
Perhaps the clause requires purging credit (when the original author
asks), but not copyright notices. In that case the name of Bob would
still be present and associated with the pornographic image: worse,
maybe it would be as in "Copyright 2006 Charly, Copyright 2006 Bob".
Without any credit that would indeed clarify that Bob merely drew the
desk, while Charly is the sole responsible for the pornographic aspects
of the resulting image...

> 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.

I'm not sure we should accept a restriction that requires me to remove
copyright notices upon request (even if it's legal to satisfy such a
Inaccurate or incomplete copyright notices are harmful...

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

I don't know if it really refers to copyright notices: it talks about
And by reviewing clauses 2.3a through 2.3e, it seems to refer to forms
of credit other than copyright notices...

> ---NEXT---
> >* 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.

Suppose I'm the Licensor and you are the Licensee: we can agree to
litigate somewhere else, but... what if *you* do not agree with me?
You already accepted a license (that *I* previously adopted to release
my work: "big mistake!") which clearly states that we agree to litigate
in Scotland.
If we cannot agree otherwise, I must travel to Scotland as soon as you
sue me...

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

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
I'm especially concerned about this kind of scenario...

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpQrpblOP80U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: