That's a good point. Consider this scenario: People put their names on
everything.
and the software is used by insurgents against a repressive regime. Unable to
catch
the insurgents, the regime in question simply goes after any and all persons
whose
names can be tied to the work, copyright holders of the tools included.
Here in the US, if someone is arrested with a cell phone, every person whose
phone
number is in that phone is potentially placed at risk if the case is "hot"
enough. In
addition, metadata attached to finished work can be used to tie one piece of
work
to another. That plus concealing the camera I use is why all jpegs I publish
shot from
my camera are stripped of their metadata. For years I have encouraged the
anonymization
of such things: if you always strip metadata, you won't forget to do so when it
really
counts, like when a police shooting triggers an uprising and police hunt
independent
cameramen and videographers for "evidence."
It is also a common practice here that when underground activists put "points
on the
board" against something like logging or gas fracking, aboveground activists
whose
names are known are harassed.
There is a lot of media published by those who must conceal their true names! I
don't
permit my "legal" name to cross the Internet, and release the news media pieces
I
write to public domain with no names on photos or videos other than those of
other
activists who want their names used and provided 3ed party media.
On 9/21/2015 at 5:29 AM, "Ralf Mardorf" <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:28:15 +0200, ttoine wrote:
>>why not the latest CC-by-sa 4.0 ?
>
>Hi,
>
>I don't want to read texts I'm anyway unable to understand, because
>they are written in lawyer language, instead I prefer to read how
>to
>make a svg file look equal, what ever application is used to open
>the
>svg file.
>Assumed I should use the Ubuntu Studio logo from the
>ubuntustudio-icon-theme package, can I update the license?
>
>$ dpkg -l ubuntustudio-icon-theme|tail -n1|awk '{print $2" "$3}'
>ubuntustudio-icon-theme 0.16
>$ grep CC-BY-SA /usr/share/doc/ubuntustudio-icon-theme/copyright
>License: CC-BY-SA-2.5
>
>[ironic] If somebody should misuse a Creative Commons spray paint
>stencils, would the police in some countries knock on the doors of
>the
>copyright holders? [/ironic]
>
>Sharing art was much easier in the punk-rocking 80s. Still today I
>would make my own art public without a license.
>
>The other question was about meta data add by applications. I
>didn't
>miss a law that nowadays enforces us to mention the used tools to
>create a jpg, png, svg?
>
>For art I made in the past I never mentioned Canon AE-1 Program,
>DeVilbiss Aerograph "Super 63", Yamaha DX7, Yamaha SPX90II, Fender
>150XL or what ever else was used.
>
>A wallpaper I already made without the Ubuntu Studio logo includes
>
>$ exiftool Pictures/moonstudio_wallpaper_1.png | grep Comment
>Comment : Created with GIMP
>
>because it's a default for GIMP. Is it just craving for
>recognition by
>the coders or do they help to fulfil laws?
>
>I never mentioned, if I used a Da Vinci Kolinsky or a No-name
>Kolinsky or if I used water-colours from Schmincke or not.
>
>My understanding is, that comments mentioning the software that was
>used can be removed. Namespace data for svg sometimes perhaps can't
>be removed, but I guess it's allowed to rename "Adobe" to "foo" and
>"Inkscape" to "bar".
>
>I'm serious! I've got concerns against all that sharing of data.
>Making art I don't have secret recipes, I'm willing to share all
>information, but I dislike to include advertising and privacy data
>to a
>file of a picture or song.
>
>Regards,
>Ralf
>
>--
>ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
>ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
>Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
