2010/12/15 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <r...@linux-delhi.org>
> While I agree that content and software licences are complex beasts,
> there are a number of reasons why you should not be promoting this
> licence. I'll just stick to the main ones here:
>
> 1. A licence is meaningless unless there is at least some expectation of
> it standing up in (some) court. Unless you have competent legal advice
> or access to vast experience in licensing, you may end up drafting a
> licence which is legally unenforceable. A licence that is not legally
> enforceable is not a licence.
>
>
I wrote a mail so that we can atleast hear its disadvantage and advantage.
this problem can be solved.
> 2. The licence has to clearly distinguish between source and object, and
> original and derived works. Even content has sources (fonts, for
> example, need both the glyph and rule definitions, while any vector
> image is incomplete without its corresponding source file). Similarly,
> a definition of original and derived, even if only in intent, would be
> required so people know their precise rights with the licence. If the
> licence needs to be clarified by the author for each use apart from
> plain copying, it is too tedious and cumbersome and has failed in its
> purpose of simplicity.
>
>
I am not advocating this exact license. I have written that a small set of
person like to create their content and they want to give in such a manner
so that
1) everybody can be use it for any purpose.
2) nobody can take control over it, I mean it should be viral copyleft.
3) License should be confusion-less, Any beautiful license which has
confusion in reusing the content is equal to a close restricted copyright
notice which restrict you directly.
If you have any license scheme for such person the please share, I
will blindly follow that.
> 3. There are a number of open content licences out there which can serve
> more or less any function you can think of. The creative commons
> process for selecting a licence, for instance, makes it trivial to get a
> licence depending on your intended use for your content.
It is not true.. Creative Commons license is not meant for the purpose
which i described. I am not against Creative Commons license. as I told,
there exist a process incremental remix of knowledge where everybody pool
their incremental knowledge or small small knowledge from various resource.
For example I am searching Linux Tips and I can find them all around but
reusing them is a big hurdle because everybody use different license and
most of them never cared about putting a license text. all these are those
people who belong to a special category of content remixer and knowledge
digger whoose sole task is to generate content and remix it. Creative
commons is not a solution.
Creative Commons has "NC" terms which is useless. People put their content
in copyleft domain so that other can reuse it. NC is a cancer.
"SA" is not clear. I like boolean over fuzzy when it comes to law.. I like
two things
1) all right reserved, you cannot do anything
2) you can do anything.
Anything inbetween is a cancer over document world. it create legal and
mentally un-usable contents.
I wrote 100 times that we are some guys who want to license scheme for
second option because we never want jump into legal hurdle into remix.
As for use, if
> you're bothered by the legalese, just get a summary of what the licence
> tries to achieve and then put the single statement ("Content released
> under FOO licence") in the appropriate place. The advantage is, these
> licences have been written by people with expertise in both law and
> content, and with experience in the whole licensing process.
>
>
Exactly, This is the problem. These are never written by remixer. Creative
Commons Licenses (this term means, I am talking about all possible
combination of CC) has creative a huge number of license.
they say, Select whatever license you want , select what ever country you
want. And this process has divided our content into walls. Walls of Creative
License, where We (atleast me) do not know whether i can reuse it or remix
it or not.
you must be on Ibibo maling list on CC, (i am too) and daily you can read
mail like
Hey I am doing so, Can i do so... and mail start with INAL and TINLA
statement and some times long debates like what exaclty is SA.
Sorry Lawrence Lessig, we just want to live a simple life where we want to
give away all right in legal manner so that anybody can remix/reuse it
without any confusion but at the same time license must have provision that
these freedom must be protected. I think Virality is the answer that is why
there is a clause which says, "any use/reuse of the work must be released
under NPDL 1.0 license."
Or we can says like "changing this license is not allowed" again I want a
legal advice to do so.
Again I am saying, I am not against CC licenses but I want to license which
fulfill our needs
> Incidentally, there is no "Creative Commons Licence". CC suggests a
> number of licences, some of which are open and some that aren't. My
> personal taste is for CC-BY-SA, and I try to use it for all content I
> release.
>
> On Wednesday 15 Dec 2010, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kinshuk Sunil
> <kinshuksu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > Does the NPDL license mean that I can do anything with the
> > > content/source/item provided I let everyone else do whatever they
> > > want to do with it such that they do the same ?
> >
> > Yes, but it pause a condition that you cannot own it. it must be
> > release under same license. you take my article and modify it.
> > resultant must be released under same NPDL license.
> > But you can add resultant work into your copyrighted book and you
> > just need to include a exception that - section x.y is relased under
> > NPDL and rest of the book is copyrighted.
> > Basically NPDL is designed to "One Click Sharing button" believers
> > who want a most simple license to give away or throw away their
> > small work like just 1 -2 screenshots or 1 small blog or a small
> > tutorial.
> > [snip]
>
> Regards,
>
> -- Raj
> --
> Raj Mathur r...@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
> GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
> PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
> _______________________________________________
> network mailing list
> netw...@lists.fosscom.in
> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
>
--
┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Narendra Sisodiya
│ http://narendrasisodiya.com
└─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
