Moved from license review.

> On 1/4/12 11:04 AM, "Chad Perrin" <> wrote:

> That is not a very easy page to find.  Thanks for pointing it out, but
> it's not the page people looking for something like what CC0 provides are
> likely to find when searching for it, I think.

> After some more effort, I finally did find a path to it through links
> from the main site, but the end result is that it did not stick in my
> mind.  Is there some straightforward means by which you found that, or
> did you find it by assuming it must exist somewhere and searching
> diligently for it through the chains of links you could find on the CC
> site?

No sorry, jumped there directly from Google.  I did look around and
the convoluted way was to actually go through their dedication "wizard"
and then click on the actual CC0 icon.  That links directly to the
natural language summary.

> > >Sure . . . except for little things like "Can I deploy this through
> > >iTunes?"  The summaries suggest that, for instance, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
> > >can, but the actual legal text includes terms that make that
> > >questionable.
> >
> > It's better than the state for open source software licenses.

> That depends on the license.

There's a lot of folklore as to what some licenses really mean.  Clear
english language statements on what you can and need to do is helpful.

Eh, I like CC and what they've done.  It's not perfect of course.

>> I see CC-BY-SA podcasts in iTunes and there are apps that use CC-BY-SA OSM
>> data.  If there's a problem folks seem unaware.  There are places to
>> insert copyright metadata for iTunes even if it's nothing else but the app
>> description text.

>That's my point: people are unaware of the potential problems, and they
>don't have anything to do with copyright metadata.  Have you considered,
>for instance, that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA contain anti-DRM clauses, and
>iTunes uses DRM?

iTunes doesn't necessarily use DRM.  It is an issue in some cases and not 
clearly delinated in the english text although they have a FAQ entry.

There was discussion a while back regarding parallel distribution but I don't
think that went anywhere.  ODbL went that route and that should resolve the
issue for OSM when the ODbL database is released.
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to