2011/2/20 geni <geni...@gmail.com>: (...) > > Well no. Because any such requirement would make it difficult to > distribute such a video via conventional TV.
A video has been released by a creator who intends it for free-software-like distribution: do you think it is good to allow reusers to display this video on the internet with an embedded player without a download link ? I personally think it is not good, and although I have never created a video myself, I guess that most creators would like to prevent this from happening. Restriction 4 (a) of CC-BY-SA 3.0 with "You may not impose any effective technological measures" is aimed principally at DRMs and probably cannot do much against the simple forgetfulness to add a download link. You may want to create a special clause for conventional TV (like requiring the TV speaker, or the opening credits or the closing credits to tell viewers that the video is otherwise available on the TV's website for download). This is why a new, yet to be written, Free Video License including this kind of clauses is needed. For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the "Licence art libre" with "specify to the recipient where to access the originals (either initial or subsequent)" (1) (but it is not clear if the word "recipient" applies only to distribution recipients or also means performance viewers and audiences) and the GFDL, from where it is possible to argue that an embedded player without a download link might not be "transparent enough", and that public performance without distribution is anyway not allowed by the GFDL, but that is far from being an explicit way to have reusers understand what thay may or may not do with the video. (1) http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
