On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:18:33PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:13:10 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > 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. > > here are the terms of service for youtube [0]. section 4A alone would > be sufficient to declare the service non-free.
Unless there is a clause saying that no youtube user shall license her work under a free license, I see no problem. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
