Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:42:00 +0100 Holger Levsen wrote: > > Before FOSDEM, all videos were released under a MIT-style licence. > > and that was a clearly DFSG-free choice. > I'm personally very happy with that choice and feel it's a perfectly > adequate license for videos.
I agree. To http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode > I'm not convinced that a work licensed under CC-by-2.5/scotland complies > with the DFSG. > Although CC-by-2.5/scotland is better than CC-by-2.0, I still see some > of the issues that are outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary > (http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html). > > Specifically: > * Removing credit when requested to do so "Removing credit when requested to do so" is not an issue outlined in Evan Prodromou's summary. The problem was having to remove *all* references to the author (thereby creating a possible termination clause, significantly restricting modification of some works and so on), rather than credits. > How requiring that credit be purged from a Collective Work or a > Derivative Work upon request from an Original Author can pass the DFSG? For a Derivative Work, I'm pretty sure that the law about false attribution allows the original author to demand they not be credited with it. This requirement seems like a no-op included to make the attribution clause consistent with the law. > Although the clause is greatly improved (with respect to CC-by-2.0 > international version), I still see a restriction in distributing > aggregates (DFSG#1) and derivatives (DFSG#3). > Why cannot I claim that my derived work is based on the original work, > if it's true? You can. You just can't display an author credit for them if they tell you they don't want one. > Where's the DFSG that allow such a restriction? Must there be a guideline to forbid misattributing works? I think it's a pretty obviously acceptable thing. > * Any comparable authorship credit > > This issue is still present, as clause 2.3e states, in part, "placing > that credit in the same place, and at least as prominently, as any > comparable authorship credit." > See Evan Prodromou's summary for details about this issue... Agreed. The "other" problem is absent, so it's a fairly small lawyerbomb, rather than a clear failure to follow any guideline. > * Sue me in Scotland [...] Of course, this is not in the summary of CC-by 2.0. > It is a major inconvenience for any *Licensor* that does not live or do > business in Scotland, though. [...] Agreed. I suggest amending the phrase after "law of Scotland" appropriately. It's a big pain that CC itself doesn't hurry out with fixed licences. CC-by-2.5-mod-videoteam isn't a problem any more than MIT-mod-videoteam IMO, as it's not copyleft. In conclusion: the first issue was not in the summary and doesn't break any DFSG, the second is a minor lawyerbomb and doesn't break any DFSG unless we have a licensor with a really strange interpretation, and the third is fairly easy to fix and doesn't break any DFSG. Convinced yet? > I recommend you against adopting or promoting this license. That's really unhelpful. I think you should make a positive recommendation. Stick with MIT-style then? > > Please reply to both mailinglists only, thanks. (Or privatly :) By the way, another message said that video files can't contain copyright licences. I thought I'd had ones that did before now, both in the metadata and in-shot at one end of the recording. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
