On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:57:19 -0400, James Vega wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Michael Gilbert > <michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:27:25 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > >> On mer, 2009-10-14 at 16:23 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > >> > the key litmus test is: does the application depend solely on non-free > >> > information to function properly. these google applications fail > >> > this test because the licensing of the data itself is at the user's > >> > discretion. hence, they are permitted in main. > >> > >> I don't really think clive use data licensed at the user discretion. > > > > i agree, clive only functions properly when it has access to the > > non-free content on youtube, so it would pass my litmus test, and should > > be moved to contrib. > > What makes youtube content (or any of the media content from the many > other sites clive supports) automatically non-free? Doesn't it depend > on how the media's author has decided to license their work?
if i recall, youtube has a specific usage agreement (i found [0]) applicable to all of its content, which for all intents and purposes would likely be declared non-free if reviewed for dfsg-freeness. hence, access to youtube content through youtube itself would be considered non-free due to that usage agreement; even though dfsg-free content may be hosted there. i've never used clive so i do not know what the usage agreements say for the other supported video sites. mike [0] http://code.google.com/apis/youtube/terms.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
