On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, sajan venniyoor <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:34 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Same goes for CSIR, AIR, DD and any number of government funded >> organisations. Tons of priceless parts of our history rotting away on >> fungus ridden tapes, or made available to those with suitable >> buddies. >> > > You can say that again. There were 48,000 or more tapes in the AIR archives > ('National Sound Archives'), containing around 25,000 hours of programmes. > As you can imagine, these were preserved in less than ideal conditions, and > by the time they got around to digitising them, plenty of the tapes had > rotted away (we'd often find the last five or ten minutes of the tape > clumped together). > > About DD, the good news is that they still have their old tapes. The bad > news is that they have taped over all their old programmes, so their archive > kind of starts last week. (I exaggerate). > > If we accept, as a general principle, that content created with public > money belongs in the public domain, then the BBC Creative > Archive<http://www.bbc.co.uk/creativearchive/>initiative could be a good way > to begin. The five principles for releasing > content under the Creative Archive content are: > 1. Non-commercial use > 2. Share-Alike > 3. Crediting (Attribution) > 4. No Endorsement and No derogatory use > 5. Only for use within the country (UK) > > However, Prasar Bharati would rather let the 'priceless parts of our > history' rot away on fungus ridden tapes than give it away free, probably > for the same reason Dr.Manmohan Singh would rather let valuable grain rot > away in fungus ridden godowns than give it away free. > > Sajan > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:34 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wednesday 06 October 2010 15:23:06 Narendra Sisodiya wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:19 PM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > On Wednesday 06 October 2010 12:56:24 Andrew Lynn wrote: >> > > > On the content : The govt. is really dragging its feet on both >> > > > NPTEL and NCERT content - both of which should be made public >> > > > domain or at least CC-BY. >> > > >> > > ALL government funded content and knowledge must be CC-BY-SA. >> > >> > Say No to the CC license itself. >> > CC is "Advertised" as '*Good license scheme*' but it is like >> > sending Army for killing an ant. >> > >> > CC is not at all simple license. There are 1000+ version available >> > for CC license. >> > CC itself has 11 valid license scheme and that too has country >> > specific version. CC is dividing whole content industry into WALLs >> > of these 1000+ license. for example If I share my pic under >> > CC-By-Sa 2.5 In and you need to legal expert to remix the content >> > with another pic which has CC-By-Sa 3.0 generic. One must need to >> > study and understand these things. >> >> The government would pick up a version most suitable to the purpose >> and then use that for all such content. It hardly matters that there >> are a 100 flavours. >> >> >> > >> > But *IF Public Money is invested into Govt project the Content must >> > be available into Public Domain without any restriction* >> >> The same flaws of cornering of public funded knowledge and content by >> private entities will arise. while the original work may be available >> to the public, all derivatives will not be so available. the -SA >> conditions ensure derivatives are not privatised. >> >> I like SA but I do not like By and NC part. I like CC-By but CC-By is not valid or it is not supported by Creative commons .org See Facebook has created a small world where facebook user share/remix content by just 'one click share'. It auto attribute. CC is good a licensing the work but not at remix and remix of remix. Why can't we have very simple "viral" licensing in document which may just 1-2 statement long and can be appended at the footer of article itself. "(C)2010, Author name, released under QWERTY license. You are allow to do anything, as long as the derivative work is released under QWERTY license" something like this... All I want to say, licensing should be so simple otherwise public domain is the best option. > Even "dual licensing" by the likes of ISRO must be resisted >> vehemently. after using taxpayers money, ISRO makes it their right to >> sell data to those with deep pockets, citing security concerns as one >> motive for high res data, but having no qualms in supplying the same >> to those with deep pockets. >> >> Same goes for CSIR, AIR, DD and any number of government funded >> organisations. Tons of priceless parts of our history rotting away on >> fungus ridden tapes, or made available to those with suitable >> buddies. >> >> >> -- >> >> Rgds >> JTD >> _______________________________________________ >> network mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >> > > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > > -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
