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

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

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
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

> > * 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

    :-(   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: pgpxcyFfgC1Q_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: