Why not simply release the content in public domain ? Or say something like
WTFPL ? honestly, NPDL sounds very ambiguous to me.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Narendra Sisodiya <
naren...@narendrasisodiya.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2010/12/15 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <r...@linux-delhi.org>
>
> While I agree that content and software licences are complex beasts,
>> there are a number of reasons why you should not be promoting this
>> licence. I'll just stick to the main ones here:
>>
>> 1. A licence is meaningless unless there is at least some expectation of
>> it standing up in (some) court. Unless you have competent legal advice
>> or access to vast experience in licensing, you may end up drafting a
>> licence which is legally unenforceable. A licence that is not legally
>> enforceable is not a licence.
>>
>>
> I wrote a mail so that we can atleast hear its disadvantage and advantage.
> this problem can be solved.
>
>
>> 2. The licence has to clearly distinguish between source and object, and
>> original and derived works. Even content has sources (fonts, for
>> example, need both the glyph and rule definitions, while any vector
>> image is incomplete without its corresponding source file). Similarly,
>> a definition of original and derived, even if only in intent, would be
>> required so people know their precise rights with the licence. If the
>> licence needs to be clarified by the author for each use apart from
>> plain copying, it is too tedious and cumbersome and has failed in its
>> purpose of simplicity.
>>
>>
> I am not advocating this exact license. I have written that a small set of
> person like to create their content and they want to give in such a manner
> so that
> 1) everybody can be use it for any purpose.
> 2) nobody can take control over it, I mean it should be viral copyleft.
> 3) License should be confusion-less, Any beautiful license which has
> confusion in reusing the content is equal to a close restricted copyright
> notice which restrict you directly.
>
> If you have any license scheme for such person the please share, I
> will blindly follow that.
>
>
>
>
>> 3. There are a number of open content licences out there which can serve
>> more or less any function you can think of. The creative commons
>> process for selecting a licence, for instance, makes it trivial to get a
>> licence depending on your intended use for your content.
>
>
> It is not true.. Creative Commons license is not meant for the purpose
> which i described. I am not against Creative Commons license. as I told,
> there exist a process incremental remix of knowledge where everybody pool
> their incremental knowledge or small small knowledge from various resource.
> For example I am searching Linux Tips and I can find them all around but
> reusing them is a big hurdle because everybody use different license and
> most of them never cared about putting a license text. all these are those
> people who belong to a special category of content remixer and knowledge
> digger whoose sole task is to generate content and remix it. Creative
> commons is not a solution.
> Creative Commons has "NC" terms which is useless. People put their content
> in copyleft domain so that other can reuse it. NC is a cancer.
> "SA" is not clear. I like boolean over fuzzy when it comes to law.. I like
> two things
> 1) all right reserved, you cannot do anything
> 2) you can do anything.
>
> Anything inbetween is a cancer over document world. it create legal and
> mentally un-usable contents.
> I wrote 100 times that we are some guys who want to license scheme for
> second option because we never want jump into legal hurdle into remix.
>
>
> As for use, if
>> you're bothered by the legalese, just get a summary of what the licence
>> tries to achieve and then put the single statement ("Content released
>> under FOO licence") in the appropriate place. The advantage is, these
>> licences have been written by people with expertise in both law and
>> content, and with experience in the whole licensing process.
>>
>>
> Exactly, This is the problem. These are never written by remixer. Creative
> Commons Licenses (this term means, I am talking about all possible
> combination of CC) has creative a huge number of license.
> they say, Select whatever license you want , select what ever country you
> want. And this process has divided our content into walls. Walls of Creative
> License, where We (atleast me) do not know whether i can reuse it or remix
> it or not.
>
> you must be on Ibibo maling list on CC, (i am too) and daily you can read
> mail like
> Hey I am doing so, Can i do so... and mail start with INAL and TINLA
> statement and some times long debates like what exaclty is SA.
> Sorry Lawrence Lessig, we just want to live a simple life where we want to
> give away all right in legal manner so that anybody can remix/reuse it
> without any confusion but at the same time license must have provision that
> these freedom must be protected. I think Virality is the answer that is why
> there is a clause which says, "any use/reuse of the work must be released
> under NPDL 1.0 license."
> Or we can says like "changing this license is not allowed" again I want a
> legal advice to do so.
>
> Again I am saying, I am not against CC licenses but I want to license which
> fulfill our needs
>
>
>
>> Incidentally, there is no "Creative Commons Licence". CC suggests a
>> number of licences, some of which are open and some that aren't. My
>> personal taste is for CC-BY-SA, and I try to use it for all content I
>> release.
>>
>> On Wednesday 15 Dec 2010, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kinshuk Sunil
>> <kinshuksu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> > > Does the NPDL license mean that I can do anything with the
>> > > content/source/item provided I let everyone else do whatever they
>> > > want to do with it such that they do the same ?
>> >
>> > Yes, but it pause a condition that you cannot own it. it must be
>> > release under same license. you take my article and modify it.
>> > resultant must be released under same NPDL license.
>> > But you can add resultant work into your copyrighted book and you
>> > just need to include a exception that - section x.y is relased under
>> > NPDL and rest of the book is copyrighted.
>> > Basically NPDL is designed to "One Click Sharing button" believers
>> > who want a most simple license to give away or throw away their
>> > small work like just 1 -2 screenshots or 1 small blog or a small
>> > tutorial.
>> > [snip]
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- Raj
>> --
>> Raj Mathur r...@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
>> GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
>> PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
>> _______________________________________________
>> network mailing list
>> netw...@lists.fosscom.in
>> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ┌─────────────────────────┐
> │ Narendra Sisodiya
> │ http://narendrasisodiya.com
> └─────────────────────────┘
>
> --
> l...@iitd - http://tinyurl.com/ycueutm
>
_______________________________________________
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
