
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Freepats



Brian May wrote:

>>>>>> "Ryan" == Ryan Underwood <nemesis-lists@icequake.net> writes:
> 
>     Ryan> I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug.
> 
> You weren't listed in your mail-followup-to header, but I CCed you
> anyway. Hmmm, I guess I should have CCed you at the start, sorry about
> that (the BTS doesn't automatically send mail to the submitter).
> 
>     Ryan> Anyway, it seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses
>     Ryan> would be more appropriate since they were specifically
>     Ryan> designed to cover media:
> 
>     Ryan> This one is just a MIT-ish license:
>     Ryan> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/
> 
>     Ryan> This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details
>     Ryan> of linking.  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
> 
> As far as I can tell, with a quick glance at the summary, both of
> these licenses should be OK as far as Debian is concerned.
> 
> I assume that the "Share Alike" clause wouldn't affect music created
> with these files, as that seems to be the desired outcome.

Watch out.  The definition of "derivative work" in the Creative Commons
licenses is quite broad, as is the definition in US law (which is also
vague to boot).

If you want to be safe, add an extra permission along the lines of the one I
posted earlier, granting permission to treat music created using the files
as if it isn't a derivative work (even if it is).

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Reply to:
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_1_0": ["gt; \n&gt; You weren't listed in your mail-followup-to header, but I CCed you\n&gt; anyway. Hmmm, I guess I should have CCed you at the start, sorry about\n&gt; that (the BTS doesn't automatically send mail to the submitter).\n&gt; \n&gt;     Ryan&gt; Anyway, it seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; would be more appropriate since they were specifically\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; designed to cover media:\n&gt; \n&gt;     Ryan&gt; This one is just a MIT-ish license:\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; <a  rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/\">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/</a>\n&gt; \n&gt;     Ryan&gt; This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; of linking.  <a  rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/\">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/</a>\n&gt; \n&gt; As far as I can tell, with a quick glance at the summary, both of\n&gt; these licenses should be OK as far as Debian is concerned.\n&gt; \n&gt; I assume that the &quot;Share Alike&quot; clause wouldn't affe"], "cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_1_0": [";     Ryan&gt; Anyway, it seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; would be more appropriate since they were specifically\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; designed to cover media:\n&gt; \n&gt;     Ryan&gt; This one is just a MIT-ish license:\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; <a  rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/\">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/</a>\n&gt; \n&gt;     Ryan&gt; This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details\n&gt;     Ryan&gt; of linking.  <a  rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/\">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/</a>\n&gt; \n&gt; As far as I can tell, with a quick glance at the summary, both of\n&gt; these licenses should be OK as far as Debian is concerned.\n&gt; \n&gt; I assume that the &quot;Share Alike&quot; clause wouldn't affect music created\n&gt; with these files, as that seems to be the desired outcome.\n\nWatch out.  The definition of &quot;derivative work&quot; in the Creative Commons\nlicenses is quite broad, as is the definition in US law (which is also\n"]}