On Thu, 09 Mar 2006, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:55, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a > > perfectly adequate license for videos. > > I dont. First it speaks about "software" not "videos" or "media".
You can always change what the license is talking about to be a MIT-style license which is dealing with video/media (or better "the work"). > But unless you distribute the videos as tar-archives (which you dont > want :) you cannot include the licence with the video. Thats why I > (additionally) want a URL. Alongside the work is probably good enough in this case; although I think that some of the formats enable you to include the copyright/licensing information within them. [You'd know more about that than I, though.] > Hmmm. Any other opinions on that ? We've been working with the CC on these particular issues; I'd personally suggest[1] holding off on changing from a non-controversially DFSG free license to one that is controversial until these issues are dealt with. [In that discussion, the scottish license came up as well, and while it is an improvement over the 2.5 CC licenses, it still has its share of warts.] Don Armstrong 1: Can I request that any videos of my stunningly hideous visage be made DFSG Free? ;-) -- "...Yet terrible as UNIX addiction is, there are worse fates. If UNIX is the heroin of operating systems, then VMS is barbiturate addiction, the Mac is MDMA, and MS-DOS is sniffing glue. (Windows is filling your sinuses with lucite and letting it set.) You owe the Oracle a twelve-step program." --The Usenet Oracle http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
