Mathieu Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The already a discution[1] which was opened about this license, but I
> didn't find if this license is DFSG complient.
I have reviewed the discussion of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00132.html
In my opinion, this license:
+ permits free redi
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Francesco Poli escribe:
> > As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> > CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> > disagree with me, though.
>
> Maybe a big part of the pr
Francesco Poli escribe:
> As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for
documentation or software works are not
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > [...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal
> > participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free
> > enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not
> > "ef
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
> That includes the amended revocation and
> attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they
> were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention
> of licensors exercising their freedom.
A soft
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:56:47 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres
> wrote:
>
> > Julien Cristau escribe:
> > > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
> >
> > Why exactly!?
>
> See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
>
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Julien Cristau escribe:
> > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
>
> Why exactly!?
See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
think the same problems apply to 2.5).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Julien Cristau escribe:
> CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
> dogmazic.net.
>
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
dogmazic.net.
Thank you, that's a clear answer. Now I can go ahead! :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Stumpf escribe:
> Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
> there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
> in the main repository?
>
AFAIK CC-by would allow it.
> Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Hopefully mine is. :)
No
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of
> the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses.
I don't doubt that. However, that's still your opinion rather than the
Workgroup's. I don't mean anything bad by that.
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
in the main repository?
Please make a short and clear answer. :)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 + Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
> > from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
> > CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Oth
On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> > you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> > which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
>
> I think [3]'s the opinion
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the Wor
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any "final answer"
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:42:49 +0100 Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would
> like to map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in
> Debian.
I really appreciate that you thought about this aspect *before* doing
all the work (that is t
On Thu, 04 May 2006 09:08:24 +0200 Frank Küster wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated
> > information on where recipients can access the original artwork.
> >
> > (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.
On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:09:51 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if
> > > > that is D
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on
> where recipients can access the original artwork.
>
> (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
>
> The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > > is DFSG-free.
> >
> > I believe that it is.
>
> If you do, could you plea
On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> I believe that it is.
If you do, could you please reply to my analysis with an
Le vendredi 28 avril 2006 à 10:33 +1000, Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards.
We've never considered choice of law as non-free. Such clauses are
considered moot in most juridictions anyway.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/
Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards.
FSF lists it as a free documentation license soon after the GFDL.
Other than section 8, it seems a simple, GPL-incompatible (due to
section 3), copyleft license.
andrew
On 4/28/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:15:28 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
And here's my co
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:28:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>"I consider the preferred form for modifying this program"
> >which is exactly the form of my examples: "I consider C code to be the
> >preferred form for modi
On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I consider the preferred form for modifying this program"
which is exactly the form of my examples: "I consider C code to be the
preferred form for modifying this program" [...]
I think you should look again at your o
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
> > > "executables" in the GNU GPL are to
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> > modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
>
> It's likely to cause problems, too.
>
> > I've a numbe
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
It's likely to cause problems, too.
> I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
> "exec
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 22:27, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
> > >preferred
> > >form of the work for making modifications to it."
> > >
> > >It's not always clear what the preferred
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:09:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific
> >(ie.
> >give an example). [...]
>
> I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it.
On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific
(ie.
give an example). [...]
I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it. I think
either you are being obtuse, or we cannot communicate about
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would
> >>>be
> >>>for a piece of media.
On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would
be
for a piece of media. [...]
So specify it.
That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferre
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
> >preferred
> >form of the work for making modifications to it."
> >
> >It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
> >for a piece of media. [...]
>
On 2004-09-12 13:53:35 +0100 Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it."
It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
for a piece of media. [...]
So sp
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:06:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> Impossible for anonymous authors.
I'm not so sure.
Alternatively, there's no "the" name. I've a first name, middle name
and family name. With initials, and
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information
Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 7. Sub-licensing
>>
>> Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who
>> wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound
>> to the author of the original work.
>
> This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based o
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the
odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks
("Originals") where modification may actually change the original.
It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute
copies (modified
Kai Blin wrote:
> * Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 11:42:42]:
>>Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably
>>cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to
>>reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work).
>>Creating bar
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The Original (the work's source or resource):
>> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
>> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
>> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
>
> wtf? This de
* Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13/09/04, 17:21:36]:
> > It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those
> > media types actually have a prefered form for modification.
>
> Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for
> .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:36PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binar
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
>> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
>> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
>> it fits toge
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> > DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> > movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
>
> Why does Debian than distribute
* Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 23:36:06]:
> If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull
> way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same
> style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in
> the process, however often that
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> > DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> > movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
>
> Why does Debian than distribute
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
> it fits together with other buttons that ues the same
> For the first: if it's the form that would be used if the author wanted
> to modify the image further, yes.
How about stuff that is 'one-way', ie. not modifiable at all in a
usefull way with todays given file formats (.xcf). Say something like
a graphical image of a button that is basically tex
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is indeed an issue.
> Is source still source when it grows beyond the imaginable?
> But that issue is not GPL-specific, IMHO.
> Are you really providing the freedoms that we value, without providing
> the preferred form for modification?
I think th
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:53:35 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> > I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL.
> > I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork...
>
> Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work
> if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:53:35PM +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
> for a piece of media. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a
> version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the
> process of working on a
* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 11:42:42]:
> Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably
> cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to
> reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work).
> Creating barriers across the
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:02:40 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
> package sear-media and another media package that'll follow when our
> DD finishes the package to this license, the GPL being a bit unclear
> when used for artwork.
I would s
The work of art:
A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
m-w.com defines oeuvre (a word I'd never heard before...) as "a
substantial body of work constituting the lifework of a writer, an
artist, or a composer." I don't think that's the right word.
The Original (th
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/09/04, 13:31:40]:
> It's very poorly worded; the body of the "clause" is "All the elements
> of this work of art must remain free", which is vague and meaningless.
> The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion
> from the vagu
* Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/09/04, 05:03:24]:
> Is there a particular work under this license that you would like Debian
> to include, or do you just want a review of the license?
I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
package sear-media and another media
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:31:40 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
(...)
> > > 4. Your Author's Rights
> > >
> > > The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
> > > contribution. By choosing to cont
* Josh Triplett:
>> 3. Incorporation of Artwork
>>
>> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
>> are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
>> into another work which would not be subject to this license.
>
> This is a standard copyleft
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
> > This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
> > ramifications of this modified work of art.
These definitions belong in an art textbook, not a licens
IMHO, looks like a free software, copyleft license. Any other thoughts
out there? -Joe
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
> Free Art license
> [ Copyleft Attitude ]
>
> version 1.2
>
> Preamble:
[snipped; no license terms]
> Definitions
>
> The work of art:
> A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
> subsequent contributions (subsequent originals and copies). It is
> created at the initia
Kai Blin wrote:
> I'm writing to ask if the Free Art License would be considered Free by
> the debian free software guidelines.
>
> The text of the license can be found at
> http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html
Here is the text of the license, for easy quoting and commentary. My
comments w
66 matches
Mail list logo
