Re: MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote: If you choose to separate the music from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General Public License is likely not to provide the level of protection the music requires. This is because the GPL was written for software, specifically, and there are other, better licenses to choose for content such as music. Therefore, if you separate the music from the software, you may also choose the Creative Commons license described below. It is recommended that you do so, because otherwise you may find yourself with the GPL unenforceable on the music, and you will have no license for the music otherwise. I strongly dislike all this FUD about the GNU GPL. The author of this permission notice should really *read* licenses before spreading misconceptions about them... The very text of the GNU GPL v2 (section 0.) defines the term Program (please note the capital letter) as: | any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the ^ | copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this | General Public License I don't see how the GPL could be considered unenforceable on the music (whatever that may mean)... Indeed music should be fine under the GPL, or at least is no worse off than when under a CC licence. Of course US copyright law as it relates to music is highly perverse, because the law was writen by the RIAA in conjuction with the record labels (ASCAP [read: ass-cap]). Remember that there are a whole crudload of copyrights on any given released song. There is Copyright on music (composer), on the lyrics (lyricist), on the performance (artist), and on the recording (Publisher [strictly whoever actually ran the recording machine]). The publisher usually has production rights, which are distict ftom the rights on a particular recording. Do note the seperate copyrights of the artist and publisher, which are often lumped together. [This is similar to how I hold copyright on a speech I give, even one that is completely impromptu, but the stenographer who trasncibes the speech has copyright on that particular transcription. Of course the transcription is a derivitive work, and would require licence from me, but there is still actual copyright on the transcription.] Then there are the special rights for the publishers, the compulsory licence, etc. Existing precident is presumably based mostly on traditional publishing, and I would not be too surprised if it conflicts with free-software style licencing were present, but certainly the CC licence would be no better off in this regard than the GPL. I think it's OK (even though upstream seems to be misled by Creative Commons propaganda or something...). If one were to quickly read the CC Licences it would be easy to miss the problems that cause GPL-incompatability and/or DFSG-nonfreeness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPLed libraries dfsg compatible?
Hello, I want to debianize EiffelStudio, a compiler and IDE for the programming language eiffel. It is dual-licenced under a commercial licence and under GPL. Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for programming with eiffel, you are not able to write any program that does not use the Base Library. With this licencing model you are forced to release your programs written in EiffelStudio (GPL version) under the GPL as well. Can we regard this software as dfsg compatible? (I'm sorry if this should be the wrong place to ask, it's my first debianization project) Best regards, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPLed libraries dfsg compatible?
This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said: Hello, I want to debianize EiffelStudio, a compiler and IDE for the programming language eiffel. It is dual-licenced under a commercial licence and under GPL. Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for programming with eiffel, you are not able to write any program that does not use the Base Library. With this licencing model you are forced to release your programs written in EiffelStudio (GPL version) under the GPL as well. Can we regard this software as dfsg compatible? Absolutely. It is a viral license, but that is the point, and Debian considers the GPL to be free. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPLed libraries dfsg compatible?
Hi, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said: Hello, I want to debianize EiffelStudio, a compiler and IDE for the programming language eiffel. It is dual-licenced under a commercial licence and under GPL. Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for programming with eiffel, you are not able to write any program that does not use the Base Library. With this licencing model you are forced to release your programs written in EiffelStudio (GPL version) under the GPL as well. Can we regard this software as dfsg compatible? Absolutely. It is a viral license, but that is the point, and Debian considers the GPL to be free. I know that GPL is free in dfsg-terms, I was just unsure because in this case it limits your control over the results of your work (A new program can hardly be considered as derived work from a library it barely uses, can it?). But if there are no doubts in this case I'm glad ;) Best regards, Moritz -- Moritz Lenz http://moritz.faui2k3.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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]
Re: GPLed libraries dfsg compatible?
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:38:14PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote: Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Moritz Lenz said: Included in EiffelStudio is the so called Base Library, released under the GPL as well. This library is absolutely nesseary for programming with eiffel, you are not able to write any program that does not use the Base Library. (A new program can hardly be considered as derived work from a library it barely uses, can it?). On the one hand you say the program barely uses the library, on the other hand you say the library is essential (you are not able to write a program that does not use the base library). This seems rather antonymic. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
