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

Re: independent.nu - DFSG compatible?

Sean Kellogg <skellogg@gmail.com> writes:

> On Saturday 27 September 2008 04:53:50 pm Ben Finney wrote:
> > > The rights are totally free for all sounds. That means you can use
> > > them as much as you want in any context you like, without needing to
> > > ask for permission.
> > 
> > Grants only right to "use", which is vague but not normally taken to
> > mean more than "perform" or "run"; i.e. a read-only use.
> How exactly can you just skip over the first sentence of this
> license in your analysis

I didn't "skip over it"; I'm taking the following "this means" as an
explanation of the intent of that sentence. If the license says "foo
means bar", I will interpret foo as meaning bar, and try not to bring
my own wishful meanings to it.

> > Doesn't grant rights to modify and redistribute, so these remain
> > reserved to the copyright holder. Fails DFSG §1 and §3.
> Sure it does... it grants all rights there in the first part.

I disagree; I think the license has told us what it means by that
first part, and its stated meaning does *not* include the rights of
redistribution and deriving modified works.

 \         “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “I think so, |
  `\   Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so.” —_Pinky and |
_o__)                                                       The Brain_ |
Ben Finney

Reply to: