* Ron Jensen -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: > I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist > on a single license for the screenshots.
The problem with multiple, submitter-chosen licenses it: - you have to archive and understand all the licenses, and - you have to note which screenshot is under which license - you can (realistically) do *nothing* if someone infringes What are you going to do?! Write a sternly worded email like "You have infringed on the copyright of 17 of our screenshots, namely the one with the ec135 with the container ship in the backgroup, the one [...]. You don't have permission to scale the one with the Concorde. You don't have permission to display the one with the Buccaneer in front of the hangar on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. [...] You can keep the one with the banked A-10 in front of the Nimitz, as it's Public Doman." A heck of a takedown notice! Guess what they'll do?! Remove the two ugliest screenshots and ask, "is it OK now"? This will then be a longer thread, and in the end we'll look like total fools and haven't achieved anything. :-P > - 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: Hmm. This wasn't an accident. The code is under the GPL, and this guarantees that it remains free. But there's no such protection for the screenshots. What if Curt has to give up leadership for some reason, someone else takes over and slowly transforms the webpage into a very questionable direction. (Pink ponies everywhere. With swastikas. ;-) Then contributors can bail out. And if someone asks for removal without good reason? We even (cvs-)removed a whole, very well done (GPL'ed) aircraft because the author asked for it, even if we had no obligation to do so. How much hurts us the loss of a screenshot in comparison? I had thought that we can be generous here. It's a cheap gift. :-) > The project should not have to track down and destroy all > copies of an image if a submitter becomes disgruntled. Hmm, true. A submitter would have to agree to the submitter license *and* to the copyright notice anyway, and the latter says that anyone can use the shots for FlightGear promotion (under some conditions). So the whole mirror clause isn't necessary, and there's no need (and no possibility) to track all copies down. S/he could only revoke further display and distribution of the screenshots by flightgear.org. > I suggest we either drop the word "authorized" from mirrors, [...] Agreed. Or, as said above, better drop the whole mirror thing and just add: the creator allows the FlightGear project to grant everyone these rights: [...] I'll edit the wiki page so that you can see what I mean. 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
