We have not released a new version of the Mac software since February 2005. This will change very soon. We are hoping to release a new version for the Mac tomorrow... we will have to go over these licensing concerns more thoroughly now...
The PC version has a more explicit license that is both on the website and in the install process. These points are important to address. No fault to you for bringing them up. We also intend to improve our website and create clearer policies, etc... We are only a few people, and there are only so many hours in the day. Part of the reason we haven't done these things is that in many ways we're still figuring it out. We devote a lot of time to making software that we give away for free. Maybe there are some lawyers out there who enjoy giving out free legal services to software developers like us, but i doubt those legal services are as high quality as the free software we make... Josh On 9/8/05, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 them to, if just one simple mistake had been made > with the license. > > The Mac version linked to on your website only appears to have a beta > test warning to agree to when running for the first time. As it is the > version that people will get if they have a Mac and visit your main > site, I wonder if there is a loophole. I might have gone mad and just > not be able to see the creative commons license you are on about, or > maybe its only in the windows and later mac version? > > If anybody did try to make derivatives of that Mac version, due to a > possible absense of stricter creative commons license, then maybe the > copyright symbol in the about box could come to your defense. In the > absense of any license that is definately and implicitly linked to the > actual software, rather than your website, to be safe I guess Id have > to assume that you were retaining all of your copyrights on it. > > May I take this opportunity to apolgise to anybody who isnt interested > in these subjects that Ive waffled about so much today. Im starting to > fear that my rants werent quite as useful or constructive as I thought > they were when I wrote them. Sorry everyone, it looks like I got far > too excited about subjects again, and sorry to ant developers, I didnt > mean to sound as harsh as it came out. > > Steve of Elbows > --- In [email protected], Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > 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 applies except where otherwise noted. > > > > The software itself is under a different CC license (by attribution, > > noncommercial, no-derivs). And this is definitely noted both on the > > site and in the terms of agreement when you install the application. > > > > -josh > > > > > > On 9/8/05, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 thats olding it back is the number of people that ignore > > > copyright of others work. > > > > > > 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 > > > derivatives permitted, or even redistribution permitted, the license > > > wont stand up in court? Because I dont have the rights too the > > > original work I used, I cant give those rights away to anyone else? > > > > > > Finally, what does it mean on the creative commons site when it > says that: > > > > > > Every license: > > > is not revocable > > > > > > Does this mean that if I accidentally publish a work with license that > > > gives away more rights than I meant to, that it is too late to change > > > it? Or at least too late to change it for people whove already used > > > the work on the basis of the original license? > > > > > > Because for example its not true to say that fireant definately > > > couldnt be rebranded without having the source code. There are > > > sometimes other ways. If they accidentally put the derivatives allowed > > > license on the site, when they meant not to allow derivatives, is it > > > too late for them to prevent me from making fireant derivatives? > > > > > > I am not intending to do anything so nasty by the way, just wanting to > > > understand the legalstuff once and for all. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve of Elbows > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:25:23 +0200, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The readme file for the fireant download mac version on your > website, > > > > > and it still says '• ANT is freeware. It will be open source.' > > > > > > > > What's worse is that the 'About FireANT' section in the Windows > > > version > > > > has no mention of Creative Commons at all. It says 'Copyright 2005 > > > > ANTisNOTTV, All Rights Reserved'. That should be changed if > FireANT is > > > > licensed under Creative Commons. > > > > > > > > > Can anybody knowledgeable in license issues tell me whether > the use of > > > > > the copyright symbol on the 'about fireant' screen in mac version > > > > > 1.0b3, contradicts in any way any of the other licensing stuff? > > > > > > > > It doesn't. You don't give away your copyright when you choose a CC > > > > license. It is just that, a license. > > > > > > > > > To apply that point more generally, if I use a creative commons > > > > > license for my videoblog, and I also put a copyright message on a > > > > > title in the videoblog, is it a license mess and invalid > combination? > > > > > > > > No. This is why you see the trademark 'Copyright 2005. Some Rights > > > > Reserved' on CC licensed content. You don't give up all your > > > copyrights - > > > > you voluntarily give up *some* of your rights. > > > > > > > > - Andreas > > > > -- > > > > <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ > > > > > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
