This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or substantial portions thereof. THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING. Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would cover "transcoding"? Are there loopholes by which someone could legally remove the copyright notice and permission notice? The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). Does anyone on the video team see this as a problem? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humour is the best antidote to reality.
Description: Digital signature