Re: better licence for fosdem, debconf, .., videos...
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:42:00 +0100 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Before FOSDEM, all videos were released under a MIT-style licence.
>
> 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 agree.
To http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
> I'm not convinced that a work licensed under CC-by-2.5/scotland complies
> with the DFSG.
> Although CC-by-2.5/scotland is better than CC-by-2.0, I still see some
> of the issues that are outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary
> (http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html).
>
> Specifically:
> * Removing credit when requested to do so
"Removing credit when requested to do so" is not an issue
outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary. The problem was having
to remove *all* references to the author (thereby creating
a possible termination clause, significantly restricting
modification of some works and so on), rather than credits.
> How requiring that credit be purged from a Collective Work or a
> Derivative Work upon request from an Original Author can pass the DFSG?
For a Derivative Work, I'm pretty sure that the law about false
attribution allows the original author to demand they not be
credited with it. This requirement seems like a no-op included
to make the attribution clause consistent with the law.
> 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?
You can. You just can't display an author credit for them if they
tell you they don't want one.
> Where's the DFSG that allow such a restriction?
Must there be a guideline to forbid misattributing works?
I think it's a pretty obviously acceptable thing.
> * 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...
Agreed.
The "other" problem is absent, so it's a fairly small lawyerbomb,
rather than a clear failure to follow any guideline.
> * Sue me in Scotland [...]
Of course, this is not in the summary of CC-by 2.0.
> It is a major inconvenience for any *Licensor* that does not live or do
> business in Scotland, though. [...]
Agreed. I suggest amending the phrase after "law of Scotland"
appropriately. It's a big pain that CC itself doesn't hurry
out with fixed licences. CC-by-2.5-mod-videoteam isn't a
problem any more than MIT-mod-videoteam IMO, as it's not copyleft.
In conclusion:
the first issue was not in the summary and doesn't break any DFSG,
the second is a minor lawyerbomb and doesn't break any DFSG unless
we have a licensor with a really strange interpretation, and
the third is fairly easy to fix and doesn't break any DFSG.
Convinced yet?
> I recommend you against adopting or promoting this license.
That's really unhelpful. I think you should make a positive
recommendation. Stick with MIT-style then?
> > Please reply to both mailinglists only, thanks. (Or privatly :)
By the way, another message said that video files can't contain
copyright licences. I thought I'd had ones that did before now,
both in the metadata and in-shot at one end of the recording.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: