While I agree that content and software licences are complex beasts,
there are a number of reasons why you should not be promoting this
licence. I'll just stick to the main ones here:
1. A licence is meaningless unless there is at least some expectation of
it standing up in (some) court. Unless you have competent legal advice
or access to vast experience in licensing, you may end up drafting a
licence which is legally unenforceable. A licence that is not legally
enforceable is not a licence.
2. The licence has to clearly distinguish between source and object, and
original and derived works. Even content has sources (fonts, for
example, need both the glyph and rule definitions, while any vector
image is incomplete without its corresponding source file). Similarly,
a definition of original and derived, even if only in intent, would be
required so people know their precise rights with the licence. If the
licence needs to be clarified by the author for each use apart from
plain copying, it is too tedious and cumbersome and has failed in its
purpose of simplicity.
3. There are a number of open content licences out there which can serve
more or less any function you can think of. The creative commons
process for selecting a licence, for instance, makes it trivial to get a
licence depending on your intended use for your content. As for use, if
you're bothered by the legalese, just get a summary of what the licence
tries to achieve and then put the single statement ("Content released
under FOO licence") in the appropriate place. The advantage is, these
licences have been written by people with expertise in both law and
content, and with experience in the whole licensing process.
Incidentally, there is no "Creative Commons Licence". CC suggests a
number of licences, some of which are open and some that aren't. My
personal taste is for CC-BY-SA, and I try to use it for all content I
release.
On Wednesday 15 Dec 2010, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kinshuk Sunil
<kinshuksu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Does the NPDL license mean that I can do anything with the
> > content/source/item provided I let everyone else do whatever they
> > want to do with it such that they do the same ?
>
> Yes, but it pause a condition that you cannot own it. it must be
> release under same license. you take my article and modify it.
> resultant must be released under same NPDL license.
> But you can add resultant work into your copyrighted book and you
> just need to include a exception that - section x.y is relased under
> NPDL and rest of the book is copyrighted.
> Basically NPDL is designed to "One Click Sharing button" believers
> who want a most simple license to give away or throw away their
> small work like just 1 -2 screenshots or 1 small blog or a small
> tutorial.
> [snip]
Regards,
-- Raj
--
Raj Mathur r...@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
_______________________________________________
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
