On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Kinshuk Sunil <kinshuksu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Why not simply release the content in public domain ? Or say something like > WTFPL ? honestly, NPDL sounds very ambiguous to me. > Very simple. 1) In some countries Public domain has no legal meaning 2) definition of public domain varies 3) somebody told me that In India, you need to give an application to patent or copyright office in written application format. just by putting 'Public domain' does not meant you have done 4) I do not know how to reuse public domain. 5) we must prefer a viral license scheme. 6) WTFPL ? it is better to avoid such terms in license. CC has a public domain license - http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode but it is not Viral in nature. My purpose was just to start and having discussion (I am not promoting NPDL, because i am not 100% sure about its legal position) ! Thanks > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Narendra Sisodiya < > naren...@narendrasisodiya.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 2010/12/15 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <r...@linux-delhi.org> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >> I wrote a mail so that we can atleast hear its disadvantage and advantage. >> this problem can be solved. >> >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> I am not advocating this exact license. I have written that a small set of >> person like to create their content and they want to give in such a manner >> so that >> 1) everybody can be use it for any purpose. >> 2) nobody can take control over it, I mean it should be viral copyleft. >> 3) License should be confusion-less, Any beautiful license which has >> confusion in reusing the content is equal to a close restricted copyright >> notice which restrict you directly. >> >> If you have any license scheme for such person the please share, I >> will blindly follow that. >> >> >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >> It is not true.. Creative Commons license is not meant for the purpose >> which i described. I am not against Creative Commons license. as I told, >> there exist a process incremental remix of knowledge where everybody pool >> their incremental knowledge or small small knowledge from various resource. >> For example I am searching Linux Tips and I can find them all around but >> reusing them is a big hurdle because everybody use different license and >> most of them never cared about putting a license text. all these are those >> people who belong to a special category of content remixer and knowledge >> digger whoose sole task is to generate content and remix it. Creative >> commons is not a solution. >> Creative Commons has "NC" terms which is useless. People put their content >> in copyleft domain so that other can reuse it. NC is a cancer. >> "SA" is not clear. I like boolean over fuzzy when it comes to law.. I like >> two things >> 1) all right reserved, you cannot do anything >> 2) you can do anything. >> >> Anything inbetween is a cancer over document world. it create legal and >> mentally un-usable contents. >> I wrote 100 times that we are some guys who want to license scheme for >> second option because we never want jump into legal hurdle into remix. >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >> Exactly, This is the problem. These are never written by remixer. Creative >> Commons Licenses (this term means, I am talking about all possible >> combination of CC) has creative a huge number of license. >> they say, Select whatever license you want , select what ever country you >> want. And this process has divided our content into walls. Walls of Creative >> License, where We (atleast me) do not know whether i can reuse it or remix >> it or not. >> >> you must be on Ibibo maling list on CC, (i am too) and daily you can read >> mail like >> Hey I am doing so, Can i do so... and mail start with INAL and TINLA >> statement and some times long debates like what exaclty is SA. >> Sorry Lawrence Lessig, we just want to live a simple life where we want to >> give away all right in legal manner so that anybody can remix/reuse it >> without any confusion but at the same time license must have provision that >> these freedom must be protected. I think Virality is the answer that is why >> there is a clause which says, "any use/reuse of the work must be released >> under NPDL 1.0 license." >> Or we can says like "changing this license is not allowed" again I want a >> legal advice to do so. >> >> Again I am saying, I am not against CC licenses but I want to license >> which fulfill our needs >> >> >> >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> network mailing list >>> netw...@lists.fosscom.in >>> http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ┌─────────────────────────┐ >> │ Narendra Sisodiya >> │ http://narendrasisodiya.com >> └─────────────────────────┘ >> >> -- >> l...@iitd - http://tinyurl.com/ycueutm >> > > -- > l...@iitd - http://tinyurl.com/ycueutm > -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘ _______________________________________________ Ilugd mailing list Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
