On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:07:41AM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> but in any case the question is: are you fine to licence your work under 
> Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License or (at the choice of the 

I'm going to assume you mean the unported "variant" here.

> user of the works) under GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or 
> later, 
> with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts?
> If so: please reply to this mail.

I'm ok with this.
(even if I'm not sure why we would want to double license them with the

> Unless I hear compelling not to, I will go with the full list of contributors 
> as copyright owners and I also only plan to stick this licence on the FOSDEM 
> 16 talk and future ones.

btw, to the question "can slides have a different license than videos",
I'm tempted to see the recordings as a derivative work of the slides
when they also frame them (the projection), so I'd say that the videos
needs to be in compliant (which doesn't necessary mean it's the same)
license as the slides, not the other way around.

Anyway, I'm just playing evil's advocate, I'm fine with anything that's
DFSG-ok for whatever contribution I did, just heed to be compatible to
what we used inside (images?) and to what already derivated from them

                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  http://mapreri.org                              : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to