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

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

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:

> 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.

I'm glad you stated it explicitly...
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

> 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.

In my view, "Removing credit when requested to do so" is an
improved-but-not-really-solved version of the "Removing references"
This is what I meant.

> > 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.

Could you please provide a pointer to the relevant articles of the
copyright (or author's right) law you're referring to?
I wasn't able to find such a right from a quick review of the Italian
Author's Right Law (I mainly searched among moral rights...).
Are you thinking about UK Copyright Law, perhaps? Or US Copyright 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.

Now I'm puzzled: in the pornographic image example, does "This image is
based on the desk image created by Bob" qualify as crediting Bob?
I think it does, and at the same time corresponds to claiming that the
derived image is based on the original image (which is true and should
be allowed to be said, I think).

> > 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.

But saying "This image is based on the desk image created by Bob" is
*not* misattribution, AFAICS. It's not a lie: it's true!

> > * 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.

It could be interpreted in various ways, some of which are non-free.
We've always said we must be conservative and assume the worst
interpretation: that's what I did and it resulted in considering this
clause a violation of the DFSG...

> > * Sue me in Scotland [...]
> Of course, this is not in the summary of CC-by 2.0.

Of course, it's not... My apologies if I gave the impression of claiming
it was.

> > 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,

I'm not so sure it's acceptable from a DFSG-freeness point of view...

> the second is a minor lawyerbomb and doesn't break any DFSG unless
> we have a licensor with a really strange interpretation,

To me, the non-free interpretations of that clause do *not* seem so

> and
> the third is fairly easy to fix and doesn't break any DFSG.

It's fairly easy to fix by amending the license, but it's not already
It doesn't fail any DFSG, but it's a good reason why a *licensor* should
avoid adopting such a license (unless he/she lives in Scotland)!

> Convinced yet?

Not 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?

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting: if the proposed alternative is a CC
license, then better stick with Expat/MIT.

    :-(   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: pgpqvbf6AFjdp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: