Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that >(accurately) credit the author of the original work! >As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed >novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknowledge the authorship >of the novel I comment on! >Don't you feel it's awkward? No. I feel that it is very reasonable for the author of a work to be able to request to not be credited if for some reason he does not want to be associated with some derivative works. >I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is >non-free. I don't. I think that DFSG #3 was never intended to cover this kind of clauses, and instead that this is a right which we should fully support. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please comment the license of vim manual and reference
* Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060821 14:47]: > (when they are not totally bogus, as in the reference to the "dissident > test" which was popular a few years ago). In case anyone is new here. This is Maco d'Itri and he only speaks about his own interpretion of the DFSG, which is totally different to how almost everyone else reads it. Thanks in advance for not replying to this post or any replies to it, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License of "vesamodes"-file in xorg-server source-package?
The file hw/xfree86/common/vesamodes in xorg-server[1] source-package doesn't contain any kind of copyright or license statement, only this text: // // Default modes distilled from // "VESA and Industry Standards and Guide for Computer Display Monitor // Timing", version 1.0, revision 0.8, adopted September 17, 1998. // // $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/etc/vesamodes,v 1.3 1999/11/16 03:28:03 tsi Exp $ Does anyone know what copyright and/or license, if any, applies to this file? The "copyright"-file of xorg-server includes a statement "XFree86 code without an explicit copyright is covered by the following copyright/license: .." but I'm not sure if it applies to this file, as this file isn't "XFree86 code" but a list of modelines. I'm also a bit unsure about the fact that these modes have been taken from some publication, but there is no mention of why it was allowed to take them from that publication. [1]http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/xorg-server -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:53:57PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:06:13 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > > OTOH, if CC intends that this clause prevents ever making the Work > > available on TPM-encumbered media (which I don't think is the > > plain-text reading of this clause), I don't believe it's > > DFSG-compliant. > AFAICT, CC seems to interpret the clause this way, since the explicit > parallel distribution proviso was *removed* because of strong opposition > from many people at a CC summit... AFAICT, you're speculating based on the same limited information that I have at my disposal. There are many reasons someone might object to such a clause that *don't* contradict our goals, and I want to hear CC's own answer to this question. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of "vesamodes"-file in xorg-server source-package?
On 8/22/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The file hw/xfree86/common/vesamodes in xorg-server[1] source-package doesn't contain any kind of copyright or license statement, only this text: // // Default modes distilled from // "VESA and Industry Standards and Guide for Computer Display Monitor // Timing", version 1.0, revision 0.8, adopted September 17, 1998. // // $XFree86: xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/etc/vesamodes,v 1.3 1999/11/16 03:28:03 tsi Exp $ Does anyone know what copyright and/or license, if any, applies to this file? The "copyright"-file of xorg-server includes a statement "XFree86 code without an explicit copyright is covered by the following copyright/license: .." but I'm not sure if it applies to this file, as this file isn't "XFree86 code" but a list of modelines. I'm also a bit unsure about the fact that these modes have been taken from some publication, but there is no mention of why it was allowed to take them from that publication. I'm guessing these may very well be uncopyrightable as a list of facts. andrew [1]http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/xorg-server -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that (accurately) credit the author of the original work! As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknowledge the authorship of the novel I comment on! Don't you feel it's awkward? No. I feel that it is very reasonable for the author of a work to be able to request to not be credited if for some reason he does not want to be associated with some derivative works. Creative Commons did what we recommended here: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary That is, they limited the removal requirements only to authorship credits. I think the general consensus was that it's OK to request reasonable modifications to "metadata" like authorship credits, but not to request modifications to the work itself. Considering that we think it's OK for the author to request to be /added/ to the authorship credits, it seems strange to say that it's incompatible for them to request to be /removed /from the authorship credits. --Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli wrote: Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that (accurately) credit the author of the original work! As I said elsewhere: I can release an annotate version of a CC-licensed novel, but I could be forbidden to accurately acknowledge the authorship of the novel I comment on! No, that's specifically something that you can do. We recommended that they only allow requesting a removal from authorship credits, not from anywhere in the book. So, if you took a novel I wrote and published an annotation called: "Wuthering Heights, from a neo-nazi Perspective", and put "by Francesco Poli and Evan Prodromou", I could reasonably ask to be removed from the authorship credits. However, within the book you could say, "What Evan means here is..." and "When Evan wrote this book..." and so on. Don't you feel it's awkward? I don't care about awkward. I care about DFSG-compatible. I think that forcing modifiers to hide the origin of the work is non-free. I have to ask: you read the summary that we sent to CC several times and gave many helpful comments and suggestions. Did you not see the recommendation in the summary on this issue, or has your opinion changed since the summary came out? Moreover, there's another aspect that concerns me: I'm compelled to credit the author of the original work (see clause 4(d) of CC-by-sa-nc-v3draft0808060) until I receive a request to purge such credit. Does this mean that I must take action upon request, even after the derivative work has been released, and re-release a revised version? What if I do not have enough time to do that? My understanding is that "to the extent practicable" means that you don't have to do anything if it's going to be an extreme pain in the can. So, changing the author credit on a Web page, say, is practicable, but changing the credit on a broadcast TV show that already aired is not. -Evan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Francesco Poli writes: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:09:52 +0100 Stephen Gran wrote: > >> This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said: >> > This still concerns me... >> > I have previously discussed the issue on debian-legal, but I'm not >> > yet convinced that this clause passes the DFSG. >> > >> > What I do not understand basically boils down to: >> > >> > How can a license (allow a licensor to) forbid an accurate credit >> > and meet the DFSG at the same time? > [...] >> And why do you think this violates the DFSG? Clause 3, which you are >> citing, says that the license must allow derived works, and must allow >> derivates to be licensed under the same terms as the original license. >> I see nothing in there that even remotely implies the original author >> can't take their name out of it. Leaving aside practical issues, how >> are you arguing that a request to remove a name either changes the >> licensing terms or prohibits derivation? > > Well, it prohibits an entire class of derivative works: the ones that > (accurately) credit the author of the original work! The Berne Convention (section 6bis), and droit d'auteur regimes even before ratification of the Berne Convention, allow an author to "object to" -- presumably in court -- any modifications of his work(s) that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. Who is entitled to make the decision whether a modification meets that? My suspicion is that, unless we assume defendants have big pockets, the author makes the decision because it is more convenient to remove the author's name than to test the point legally. Thus, if the author is worried enough about attributions that they dislike (and note that some upstream authors of software in Debian are notorious about this), he is likely to get his way even if the license does not explicitly require removing his name. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
