IANAL,
I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist on a single
license for the screenshots.
I also agree with the basic aims of the suggested wiki license and offer
the following suggestions:
*** First ***
The bullet:
- The creator grants the FlightGear project a revokable and
non-exclusive copyright, which permits the project:
Should read:
- The creator grants the FlightGear project a non-revocable, perpetual
and non-exclusive copyright license, which permits the project:
The submitter should not be able revoke the copyright license once
granted. This is the same concept as the GPL. The project should not
have to track down and destroy all copies of an image if a submitter
becomes disgruntled. Once an image is shared under this license grant
is should stay shared.
*** Second ***
1. to use the screenshot in documentation and promotion of the
FlightGear simulator, including the display on the FlightGear
website and all authorized mirrors (including mirrors which are
translated to other languages and may include additional services
like forums),
I suggest we either drop the word "authorized" from mirrors, or provide
an expansive definition of the word "authorized" to make it an op-out
authorization instead of an opt-in. That is, all mirrors are authorized
unless explicitly unauthorized.
Thanks,
Ron
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:02 -0500, Matthew Tippett wrote:
> I am suggesting nothing more complex than a requirement for the
> description to include a license. No license information - no upload.
> Forcing a single license for something that is individual and clearly
> divisble is way too coarse.
>
> There should be no maintenance of the flightgear project's side. The
> issue with a catch-all license is that for someone to do what they
> want means they need to create an explict exclusion.
>
> Please ensure that you have worked through a few scenarios, the
> project effort to relicense after a mass-licensing is way higher than
> requesting all users determine what license they want - leaving the
> remainder to be relicensed if and only if they want to give it up all
> rights to the project.
>
> Regards... Matthew
>
>
> On 11/24/08, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Matthew Tippett -- Tuesday 25 November 2008:
> >> I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the
> >> licenses on the images in the gallery.
> >
> > But that's exactly what you suggest: that everyone chooses his
> > favorite license, and the project therefore has to manage all that
> > and keep track of the load of licences. That's a lof of work with
> > no gain. Simplicity rules. Yes, better just one license. And that's
> > what the suggestion on the wiki was for.
> >
> > m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
