On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 01:08:01AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sonntag, 17. Juli 2011, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Might be a good idea. However, I feel I need to ask: Why not simply move
> > to cc-by-sa and 'forget' about the debconf-video license? Or are the two
> > incompatible?
>
> good po
On Sonntag, 17. Juli 2011, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Might be a good idea. However, I feel I need to ask: Why not simply move
> to cc-by-sa and 'forget' about the debconf-video license? Or are the two
> incompatible?
good point. I dont think they are, the old licence is basically the 2clause
bsd l
The debconf-video license is a modifed MIT license,
more exactly: The word "software" ist replaced by the word "work".
So it can be regarded as nearly the same thing,
and not as a strange homebrewn license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/
> Might be a good idea. However, I feel I need to ask: Why not simply move
> to cc-by-sa and 'forget' about the debconf-video license? Or are the two
> incompatible?
Guess, no one is really able to tell you, unless he's a lawyer.
This is exactly the problem with cc licenses.
They pretend to be easi
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 09:53:04AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in previous years we released the videos under the 'DebConf video licence'
> which is available here:
> http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/LICENCE'
>
> Then we got a request to relicence the video from
