Cheers,
Silvia.
On 5/18/06, Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many have feelings against creative commons because not all variants (or
all?) are DFSG 'Free'.
Thanks,
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Why don't you choose a creative commons license? It's a widely
> acknowledged licensing scheme and if you use e.g. cc by-sa v2.5
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ > you are more compatible
> with other content out there and combinations with other open content
> are more easily possible.
>
> Creting your own content license is undesirable just like creating your
> own open source software license because it inhibits combining content
> from different sources.
>
> Just my 2c worth..
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100
> From: Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> Subject: [Debconf-video] Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
> To: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>,
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Message-ID: < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: Digital signature
> Url :
> http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/list/debconf-video.html/attachments/20060515/7e542c78/attachment.pgp
> < http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/list/debconf-video.html/attachments/20060515/7e542c78/attachment.pgp>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-video mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-video
--
Scott Dier < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CS/IT Systems Staff
_______________________________________________ Debconf-video mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-video
