Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:01:30 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Looking further, I could not find any Debian-approved licenses for creative (non-software) works [2], [3]. Is the Debian approach to just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content? Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Indeed. Anyway, what recommendation should I make that will satisfy the DFSG? Thank you for your constructive thoughts. If the work is accompanying a program, it makes sense to license it under the same software license. This is always a good recommendation. In the case of a software work that has no programs, a license like Expat should be fine. Agreed. Even the GPL terms could be used, so long as it's clear what the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it means for that work. Agreed, with the addition that, IMHO, the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it is always well-defined (even though sometimes it may be non-trivial to determine). Hence, I would recommend the GNU GPL (v2) whenever one wants a copyleft. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpM9nmvjD0lR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:11:10 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 3/11/07, Michael Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Is the Debian approach to just use a software license like GPL or BSD for creative content? Anyway, what recommendation should I make that will satisfy the DFSG? Thank you for your constructive thoughts. I'd recommend just using the GPL or Expat licenses, they are tried and tested and don't contain anything too specific to software. Agreed. P.S.: I would have said don't contain anything too specific to programs, since I use the term software in its broadest meaning: see http://frx.netsons.org/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html for further details. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpB00M26BPFY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's preferred form for modification clause. Unless the creators of the podcast directly edit the MP3--which is rather unlikely--the MP3 is not the preferred form for modification and putting the MP3 under GPL without releasing the raw audio files grants no rights at all. GPLing video has a similar problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's preferred form for modification clause. Unless the creators of the podcast directly edit the MP3--which is rather unlikely--the MP3 is not the preferred form for modification and putting the MP3 under GPL without releasing the raw audio files grants no rights at all. GPLing video has a similar problem. The preferred form for modification for a film director is often a reshoot of the scene. I guess this means that a GPL video would have to ship with (a copy of) Tom Cruise if he happens to be one of the actors in the film. Sounds difficult to fulfill. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's preferred form for modification clause. Unless the creators of the podcast directly edit the MP3--which is rather unlikely--the MP3 is not the preferred form for modification and putting the MP3 under GPL without releasing the raw audio files grants no rights at all. GPLing video has a similar problem. In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner, they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2. Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug! Recipients should not be in a position of disadvantage with respect to original authors, or otherwise it's not really Free Software. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpMEIxdZ76jp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:04:57 + Måns Rullgård wrote: Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ben Finney wrote: Those licenses can apply to any software, not just programs. So, if the software is an audio work or picture, a software license like GPL or Expat can apply to it. Actually, there's one big problem. The GPL's preferred form for modification clause. [...] The preferred form for modification for a film director is often a reshoot of the scene. I guess this means that a GPL video would have to ship with (a copy of) Tom Cruise if he happens to be one of the actors in the film. Sounds difficult to fulfill. No, that is the preferred form for recreating the film from scratch! The preferred form for *modifying* the film is the video recording in some format that is, well, preferred for, well, making modifications (adding special effects, postproduction, editing, and so forth: think about the so-called special editions of old movies, scenes are not shot again with the original actors, but they may be modified in various ways). -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpJy5BU2EUHv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner, they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2. Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug! Recipients should not be in a position of disadvantage with respect to original authors, or otherwise it's not really Free Software. It's a bug. If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no obligation to give you anything. So the result is that you can't demand source and can't distribute the work either. That doesn't give free software the least bit of benefit. The problem with source for audio or video files is that the source is much larger and much more awkward to distribute than the final result. It's plausible that the author doesn't care what you do with his work, but doesn't want to give you these files simply because it's a lot of trouble. If he then puts his work under GPL, he may not even realize that he's given you no permission to redistribute at all. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
Ken Arromdee wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Francesco Poli wrote: In order to release the audio/video recording in a DFSG-free manner, they should release the source as well, as defined in the GNU GPL v2. Wonderful! That is a feature of the GPL, not a bug! Recipients should not be in a position of disadvantage with respect to original authors, or otherwise it's not really Free Software. It's a bug. If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no obligation to give you anything. So the result is that you can't demand source and can't distribute the work either. That doesn't give free software the least bit of benefit. The problem with source for audio or video files is that the source is much larger and much more awkward to distribute than the final result. It's plausible that the author doesn't care what you do with his work, but doesn't want to give you these files simply because it's a lot of trouble. If he then puts his work under GPL, he may not even realize that he's given you no permission to redistribute at all. Also, it's very possible that stuff no longer exists. I know that when I do an audio project (quite infrequently), once I'm satisfied with the result, I toss away all the intermediate stuff (audacity project files and the like) and only keep the finished (wav/mp3/whatever). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote: If the original author puts a video under GPL and doesn't release the source, you can't demand it. He's not bound by the GPL since he can't violate the copyright on his own work, so he has no obligation to give you anything. This is the same problem that exists for any work under the GPL; there's nothing special about recordings here. The problem with source for audio or video files is that the source is much larger and much more awkward to distribute than the final result. It's plausible that the author doesn't care what you do with his work, but doesn't want to give you these files simply because it's a lot of trouble. If you as an author do not want to distribute the source (or more importantly, require others who modify your source to do so) then you should pick a license like MIT or expat. The licensing line is fairly simple: Do you want copyleft? Yes: GPL (Maybe LGPL in some cases) No: MIT/Expat Don Armstrong -- An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p244 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
