On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:19:23 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
> > On the other hand, in the hypothetical case we are talking about,
> > Charlie doesn't say "This image is created by Bob" or otherwise
> > tries to pass it off as a work by Bob.
> > He clearly states that "This image is *based on* the desk image
> > created by Bob" (emphasis added).
>
> If he uses that as a credit for the *derived* work, when Bob had no
> part in the *derived* work, that still seems passing off or false
> attribution, unless there's specific permission.
I'm puzzled: how can you say that "Bob had no part in the *derived*
work"?
His part was drawing the desk, that was later reused in the derived
work!
Does Linus Torvalds have no part in linux-image-2.6-*.deb? Debian Linux
kernels are different from official kernel.org ones, but that doesn't
mean that upstream have no part in them!
Or am I misreading what you wrote?
>
> > What I'm saying is "who decides what is accurate and what is
> > inaccurate credit?".
> > You seem to imply that the credited person can arbitrarily decide on
> > that question.
> > I instead think the courts have such a power.
>
> The credit permission can be terminated, but I didn't think we needed
> the right to use upstream's name as a credit for something to meet the
> DFSG. This seems similar to trademarks vs filenames. The problem with
> the CC-generic licence was the requirement that *all* *references* to
> the Author be removed, which is an unacceptable restriction on
> modification that can make project histories and encyclopedias
> seriously incomplete.
OK, we agree that the requirement to purge *all references* is non-free.
But I'm not convinced that requiring to purge accurate credit is
DFSG-free...
[...]
> If there's any doubt, I think the credited person usually gets to
> decide whether a credit is acceptable, even if true, so CC-Sco only
> gives extra permission and doesn't restrict the four freedoms.
What if there's no doubt?
>
> I still consider that X11-style licences are the best for these
> videos,
And I agree (the Expat license is my favourite non-copyleft).
> and that Artistic is acceptable, but also that
> CC-Scotland-by-2.5 is an acceptable licence that corrects the DFSG
> failures of CC-generic-by-2.5.
I have to disagree.
At the very least (even if we conclude that requiring to remove credit
upon request is acceptable), CC-by-2.5/scotland still has the following
other issues:
* the "any comparable authorship credit" lawyerbomb
* the "sue me in Scotland" problem
I strongly suggest to adopt clearly DFSG-free licenses that don't have
issues in the first place, rather than choosing a license with more or
less small issues that must be cured.
Hence, my suggestion to stick to Expat license.
>
> Unless there's objection, I suggest we stop cross-posting to -video
> now.
OK, done.
--
:-( 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:
pgpe6GwEDjE2N.pgp
Description: PGP signature