Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:55:56 +0200 Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:56:21 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be -distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or +distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of the work or substantial portions thereof. I'm not sure if this phrasing tries to require that transformations and adaptations (a subset of derivative works) be licensed under the same license as the original work. I cannot see how this is different from how BSD licenses require that the BSD copyright blurb *itself* is retained with all derivates. Everybody seems to agree that this does not make the BSD license viral, and that a derivor is free to give fewer rights to his part of the copyright in the derived work than the original BSD author gave to his part. Mmmmh, yes, you're right. OK, so I think that the current proposal is a good license for Debconf video recordings[1]. [1] even though I'd slightly prefer an unmodified Expat license, in order to avoid contributing to license proliferation, but oh well... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKyoeVcJ0xu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
Scripsit Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:56:21 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be -distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or +distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of the work or substantial portions thereof. I'm not sure if this phrasing tries to require that transformations and adaptations (a subset of derivative works) be licensed under the same license as the original work. I cannot see how this is different from how BSD licenses require that the BSD copyright blurb *itself* is retained with all derivates. Everybody seems to agree that this does not make the BSD license viral, and that a derivor is free to give fewer rights to his part of the copyright in the derived work than the original BSD author gave to his part. -- Henning MakholmI ... I have to return some videos. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Debconf-video] Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without [...] Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? It seems to make the recordings to comply with the DFSG. However, I would prefer not seeing the term recording in the license. A more general term such as work would be better suited, IMHO. Yes, I see your point. I also reemembered after posting that we would want the licence to be applicable to DVDs which also include some still images and text. snip The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft. It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's definitely a non-copyleft license. Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer... The licence is contingent upon distributing its own text with any copy of the work or (at least some forms of) derivative work. I thought that that implied the author of the derivative work would grant the same permissions. But perhaps it could be distributed simply as information about the original work. The MIT/X licence doesn't place the same requirement on distributed binaries, AIUI. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Debconf-video] Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
[Sorry for the dupe, Don. I meant to reply only to these lists.] Don Armstrong wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006, Ben Hutchings wrote: snip Thanks for the diff. This is pretty much is just the XFree86 license; I don't think there's any problem with works under this licence being considered DFSG Free. Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would cover transcoding? There are probably a couple, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. snip Transcoding is a technical term that might not be understood in law. There is a term mechanical translation but I'm not sure whether that refers to machine translation of human language or also to format conversion. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
Here's a new draft. I've changed recording to work throughout and replaced transcode with transform and adapt, based on the terminology CC uses. --- debconf-video-licence.draft12006-05-14 21:18:51.0 -0500 +++ debconf-video-licence.draft22006-05-18 13:48:51.226221352 -0500 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining -a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without +a copy of this work, to deal in the work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, -transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell -copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording +transform, adapt, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell +copies of the work, and to permit persons to whom the work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be -distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or +distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of the work or substantial portions thereof. -THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, +THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION -WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING. +WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:56:21 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: Here's a new draft. This is an improvement. [...] The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be -distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or +distributed with all copies, transformations and adaptations of the work or substantial portions thereof. [...] Does this change try to create a (very) weak copyleft? I'm not sure if this phrasing tries to require that transformations and adaptations (a subset of derivative works) be licensed under the same license as the original work. Can anyone share her/his thoughts? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp1gbUPaLGqT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Debconf-video] Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:15:20 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft. It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's definitely a non-copyleft license. Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer... The licence is contingent upon distributing its own text with any copy of the work or (at least some forms of) derivative work. I thought that that implied the author of the derivative work would grant the same permissions. But perhaps it could be distributed simply as information about the original work. It must accompany the derivative work as the license for the parts that come from the original work. The license states: | distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or | substantial portions thereof I don't think that a transcoding is a derivative work (assuming that I correctly understand what you mean by transcoding): it's a mechanical (i.e. non creative) transformation. Hence, the license text must accompany *copies* and *substantial portions* of the original work. Not a derivative work as itself: only the substantial portions of the original work that may be included in the derivative work. Every creative contribution that is added (in order to obtain the derivative work) may be under a different license. If a proprietary license is chosen, the derivative work is effectively proprietary (until you manage to reextract the parts under the permissive license, if at all possible). Hope this clears things up. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgppzqWVawpMM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:34:12 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without [...] Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? It seems to make the recordings to comply with the DFSG. However, I would prefer not seeing the term recording in the license. A more general term such as work would be better suited, IMHO. Why? Because permission to modify is granted by the license (and that is essential in complying with the DFSG, of course!) and hence people will be able to modify those recordings, even to the point where they stop qualifying as recordings. For instance I can extract a screenshot from the recording and distribute it as a desktop wallpaper. At that point the derivative work is not a recording anymore, but an image, I would say. [...] The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). I don't think that this license could in any way be seen as a copyleft. It does permit me to create a proprietary derivative work, so it's definitely a non-copyleft license. Not an issue, though: I pointed this out just to make things clearer... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpBEB0psn42I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings (and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the MIT/X licence: Here's the text: Copyright (c) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this recording, to deal in the recording without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, transcode, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the recording, and to permit persons to whom the recording is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be distributed with all copies and transcodings of the recording or substantial portions thereof. THE RECORDING IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECORDING OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE RECORDING. Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings? I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would cover transcoding? Are there loopholes by which someone could legally remove the copyright notice and permission notice? The lack of a clear distinction between source and binary for video means that the licence is much more like copyleft than the originali (but without any mention of a preferred form). Does anyone on the video team see this as a problem? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humour is the best antidote to reality. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposed licence for Debconf video recordings
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This is a proposed licence text for the Debconf video recordings
(and potentially other audio and video recordings), based on the
MIT/X licence:
Copyright [-(C) 1994-2003 The XFree86 Project, Inc. All Rights Reserved.-]
{+(c) year copyright holders+}
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this [-software and associated documentation files (the
Software),-] {+recording,+} to deal in the [-Software-]
{+recording+} without restriction, including without limitation the
rights to use, copy, {+transcode,+} modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the [-Software,-]
{+recording,+} and to permit persons to whom the [-Software-]
{+recording+} is [-furnished-] {+furnished+} to do so, subject to the
following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be [-included in-]
{+distributed with+} all copies {+and transcodings of the recording+} or
substantial portions [-of the Software.-] {+thereof.+}
THE [-SOFTWARE-] {+RECORDING+} IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE [-XFREE86 PROJECT-] {+AUTHORS
OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS+} BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE [-SOFTWARE-]
{+RECORDING+} OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE [-SOFTWARE.-]
{+RECORDING.+}
This is pretty much is just the XFree86 license; I don't think there's
any problem with works under this licence being considered DFSG Free.
Does this appear free and reasonably applicable to such recordings?
I seem to remember that there are some specific legal terms relating
to copyright of audio recordings. Is there a legal term that would
cover transcoding?
There are probably a couple, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking
for here.
Are there loopholes by which someone could legally remove the
copyright notice and permission notice?
I don't believe so; since it's just the XFree86 license, and no one
has been able to modify it in that fashion before, I kind of doubt it.
Don Armstrong
--
Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the
intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics.
-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
