Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > 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 > [...] > > Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? > > It seems to make the recordings to comply with the DFSG. > > However, I would prefer not seeing the term "recording" in the license. > A more general term such as "work" would be better suited, IMHO. Yes, I see your point. I also reemembered after posting that we would want the licence to be applicable to DVDs which also include some still images and text. <snip> > > 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). > > I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft. > It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's > definitely a non-copyleft license. > Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer... The licence is contingent upon distributing its own text with any copy of the work or (at least some forms of) derivative work. I thought that that implied the author of the derivative work would grant the same permissions. But perhaps it could be distributed simply as information about the original work. The MIT/X licence doesn't place the same requirement on distributed binaries, AIUI. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Description: Digital signature