On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:51:26 +0100 Holger Levsen wrote: > 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". Please, let's avoid restarting the "what is software?" endless discussion, OK? There are two (main) meanings for the word "software": one is stricter (and refers to computer programs only), one is broader (and is opposed to hardware). Even if you are a "software is only programs" guy, I hope you can admit the existence of the other meaning... We can anyway substitute the term "software" with something clearly broad as "work"... The Expat/MIT license would survive such a modification! > Second, I don't like the naming issue: it's not the "MIT-licence", > it's the "videoteam licence MIT-style". I'm not sure I understand what you mean here: could you please clarify? > > > 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" ?) Maybe I wasn't clear enough: to state the matter differently, I like the Expat license more than CC-by, even than a fixed CC-by version x.y that would comply with the DFSG (I don't know whether such a CC-by license version will ever exist, but let's assume it will for the sake of the argument...). Consequently, even assuming CC-by freeness issues are solved, I still prefer the Expat license... > > > 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 didn't say "including", I said "accompanying": there's a significant difference... [...] > > * 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 ? It was mentioned in the part you cut from your quotes. For your convenience, it's http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html -- :-( 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:
pgpk3OHM7sg8j.pgp
Description: PGP signature