can you ellaborate on the exclusively for-pay video aggregators model?
and yeah... apache got its name because it was 'a patchy' web server.
its bloated, slow and lacking... but nobody knows better virtually no competion.
however, a web server and a video aggregator are very different.
Like Josh IANAL, and you should contact a real lawyer for legal advice.
Whats even worse is people mixing the two. Am I right to say that if
someone uses copyrighted music in their videoblog, and then they use a
creative comons license for their videoblog, its invalid?
If you're using the
Thanks fo the time you spend replying. Sorry you were put on the
defensive, I havent worked out how to ask questions without putting
people in the mode yet. Some of this rsponse is to other peoples
replies, I dont want to make multiple emails on this subject,
hopefully this is my last one.
Sorry
Friday, September 9, 2005, 5:44:25 AM, Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps we'd also like to have a discussion about the downsides of open
source and what an open source entrant into a market like aggregators
does to the market and the quality of the software available? I advised
Jay and co. against
Steve Watkins wrote:
Whats even worse is people mixing the two. Am I right to say that if
someone uses copyrighted music in their videoblog, and then they use a
creative comons license for their videoblog, its invalid?
eg if I use copyrighted music and then give my videoblog away with
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
OK, full disclosure on this... we're not lawyers. We're regular people
trying to make a cool product and a business out of something we
started on our own. We're learning as we go. There are definitely some
things that we hope to clarify on our website and in our
Michael Sullivan wrote:
and yeah... apache got its name because it was 'a patchy' web server.
its bloated, slow and lacking... but nobody knows better virtually no
competion.
From reports I've read, Apache's goal is not to be the fastest web
server, but one of the goals is to adhere
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
This has been discussed many times. We are not intending to continue
much longer with this default feeds list. Its old. A relic from the
first version when only 20 video feeds were even in existence. A lot
has happened since then.
We're working on improving our
This is a correct assessment. FireAnt is not open source in that it is
released under an open source license. That is a very clear and
distinct thing. I do however think that we are very much in tune with
the spirit and culture of open source, which is something much more
abstract but no less
I could see how this debate was turning into
something almost personal and bitter. At best it was/is an "ideological"
clash--I.e. "idealistic (??) moralistic(???) Muslims versus the evil (???)
capitalist Western world".
I have wasted so much money on computer books and
programs and
Steve Watkins wrote:
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FireANT is freeware (license unknown)
I/ON is freeware (license unknown)
DTV is GPL'd
PenguinTV is GPL'd
FireANT is licensed under Creative Commons (by attribution -
non-commercial -
Which to me would mean I can put FireANT on a CD I gave away, or put it
on a web site for people to download, as long as I didn't sell the CD or
charge for the download. It also suggests I could make no changes to it
in doing so, like brand it with my own look/feel/etc.
Not without getting
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Which to me would mean I can put FireANT on a CD I gave away, or put it
on a web site for people to download, as long as I didn't sell the CD or
charge for the download. It also suggests I could make no changes to it
in doing so, like brand it with my own look/feel/etc.
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:12:16 +0200, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which to me would mean I can put FireANT on a CD I gave away, or put it
on a web site for people to download, as long as I didn't sell the CD or
charge for the download. It also suggests I could make no changes to it
I think I misinterpreted. Pete wouldn't be allowed to make modifications
like a rebranding. Everything else is fine.
- Andreas
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:38 +0200, Andreas Haugstrup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:12:16 +0200, Joshua Kinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which
Sorry Andreas... this is out of context.
Yes, the use cases you describe are correct.
What is not legit is distributing modifications of the software
(derivatives) in order to put your own look and feel on it
(re-branding) without permission.
Hope this clarifies our current license structure.
Many thanks for your clarifications so far :)
Got a few remaining complications though, confusing things that it
would be lovely for you to fix when theres a convenient moment:
The readme file for the fireant download mac version on your website,
and it still says ' ANT is freeware. It will be
Cheers for the cclarification, yes that makes sense, its amazing how
quickly I get rusty on these things when I dont think about them for a
few months.
In terms of how creative commons and other alternative licenses are
progressing in terms of use in the videoblogging world, I expect one
things
OK, full disclosure on this... we're not lawyers. We're regular people
trying to make a cool product and a business out of something we
started on our own. We're learning as we go. There are definitely some
things that we hope to clarify on our website and in our licensing
agreement (that thing
Im not a lawyer either, and I just want to understand this stuff and
help others understand the legal stuff too. Its supposed to be helpful
advise, sorry if it seems more like criticism.
But half the point of my rant is that no, opensource is about sharing
sourcecode, thats wht it means. My gripe
I think you may be confused because there are two different CC
licenses appearing on the FireANT site. The one at the bottom of the
webpage is in reference to the content on the site. It is more liberal
in terms of allowed uses (derivatives are allowed), but also states
that the license only
Steve,
You ask very tough questions. This is good, but I don't really have
all the answers for you (or the answers you necessarily want to hear).
I completely disagree with you on the definition of open source there.
Open source is not just about source code. It is a much larger
cultural
I just cant find a reference to the stricter license anywhere on your
site. Im not trying to be a pain, Im just trying to make sure there
isnt any loophole in this stuff. I was actually scared by the thought
that someone could redistribute a derivative version of fireant, even
if you dont want
I would like to know if the group minds me asking tough questions and
being a bit harsh?
The primary reason I do it, apart from being socially defective in
some way it seems, is related to the recent discussions about
impartial media, bias, citizen journalism, accuracy, all that stuff.
If we
so are you suggesting we make people sign agreements or NDA's next
time in order to become beta testers? When people sign up o get
pre-release versions of Mac OS, I'm sure they have to do something
similar...
These simple instructions (more like simple courtesies) were very
clear in the initial
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
Which to me would mean I can put FireANT on a CD I gave away, or put it
on a web site for people to download, as long as I didn't sell the CD or
charge for the download. It also suggests I could make no changes to it
in doing so, like brand it with my own
Steve Watkins wrote:
I would like to know if the group minds me asking tough questions and
being a bit harsh?
these are good questions
--
My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
http://apperceptions.org
http://digitaldojo.blogspot.com
http://spinflow.org
http://wearethemedia.com
I don't think I would consider this a derivative work. The FireANT
program itself isn't modified in any way that would make it in
violation here I don't really understand why this use case would
even raise a flag?
-Josh
On 9/8/05, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Kinberg
Let me caveat this discussion too and reiterate that I am not a lawyer
and my comments are strictly my own opinion which is based on little
to no legal understanding whatsoever. I am merely trying to answer
concerns in the best way that I know how... although the best way
would really be for me to
No im not suggesting that, its up to you to decide on the right
balance, a NDA would be over the top unless it was absolutely vital
that nobody ever said anything 'secret' about a beta version to the
outside world, or if you waited to show a closed group of people some
features but make sure they
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
I don't think I would consider this a derivative work. The FireANT
program itself isn't modified in any way that would make it in
violation here I don't really understand why this use case would
even raise a flag?
-Josh
i do
and what is a change? is it a change
Ahh the default feedlist, now theres a real issue for videobloggers
that connects to the issues we've been discussing today.
Again even though there are legitimate and perfectly innocent
explanations for why ant ships with the list of feeds that it does,
its a great example of an issue where
OK, so clearly we have to call in the lawyers on this one...
Honestly, if you want to redistribute FireANT on a CD for
non-commercial purposes, I think that's in perfect accordance with our
license. If you want any customizations, then we'll talk about it and
come to an agreement that works.
This has been discussed many times. We are not intending to continue
much longer with this default feeds list. Its old. A relic from the
first version when only 20 video feeds were even in existence. A lot
has happened since then.
We're working on improving our directory. When its at a point
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
I feel rather put on the defensive though.
Steve can really bat them out.
These are some tough questions.
I think many of us really appreciate your openness.
Thanks for all that you do Josh.
markus
--
My name is Markus Sandy and I am app.etitio.us
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
OK, so clearly we have to call in the lawyers on this one...
Honestly, if you want to redistribute FireANT on a CD for
non-commercial purposes, I think that's in perfect accordance with our
license. If you want any customizations, then we'll talk about it and
come to
Good point, Clint.
We'll work on including this information in an FAQ.
-Josh
On 9/9/05, Clint Sharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joshua Kinberg wrote:
OK, so clearly we have to call in the lawyers on this one...
Honestly, if you want to redistribute FireANT on a CD for
non-commercial
Steve Watkins wrote:
No im not suggesting that, its up to you to decide on the right
balance, a NDA would be over the top unless it was absolutely vital
that nobody ever said anything 'secret' about a beta version to the
outside world, or if you waited to show a closed group of people some
38 matches
Mail list logo
