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

[MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop>]

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:16:13 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> > "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"
> issue. This is what I meant.

I see it as significantly different. If it was all references,
you could be effectively stopped from using their work in a
biography of the author or a project history, for example.
It also combined awkwardly with other requirements, IIRC.

> > 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?

UK Law, as this licence is for the law of Scotland. I think
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s84 is the legislation
and a credit is attribution.

> 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).

I think it depends where and how "based on the desk image
created by Bob" is stated. Your porno image may have other
problems: I can't remember if that is derogatory treatment.

> > 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...

I don't recall ever agreeing that. I think I usually note the
lawyerbomb and advise checking each work in such cases. Of
course, I'd agree works under such a licence don't necessarily
follow the DFSG, but I think we have other licences like that,
especially ones with optional freedom-breakers.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct