[pp.int.general] free software video streaming

[illunatic at greenpirate.org]

Quoting Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org>:

> CC-BY-ND is definitely not a free license.
> See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html.
>
> I don't believe that works of opinion and art must be free.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
>   Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>

Is it ever appropriate for works of opinion and art be limited to a no  
derivative (ND) licenses?

Thank you, Richard, for the helpful responses and consideration. While  
I have the opportunity, thanks for FSF and GPL as well! Thanks to  
everyone here for taking a moment to go back to basics.

Please consider that these questions and observations are motivated by  
an effort to understand why RMS, who has expressed a wish to preserve  
his message, has chosen this license. It is also an attempt to really  
clarify what limits are still imposed by such licensing, who they are  
imposed upon and whether it is to be considered an actual imposition  
at all. ( "Imposition" Def. 1b  
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imposition )

/* The freedom to use works as defined by  
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/ */

########## Questions! Questions Everywhere! ##########
Under this license you are free to share and free to make commercial  
use of work, yet the work must always remain in its original context.  
It demands that, as far as the law is observed, an original copy of  
the work as intended will be produced.

For each copy that is made, it is mandatory that the original context  
and message expressed by the author or artist is preserved and  
disseminated without distortion. This seems similar to the spirit or  
intent that once inspired copyright law. A clear difference apparent  
in the CC BY-ND license is attempt to clearly provide safe harbor to  
users in a way that creates a few layers of security against much of  
the abuses the modern copyright law allows for. Copyright troll  
lawyers and the use of copyright as a tool for censorship being two  
examples of how such licensing is exploited.

This is a most honorable intention which may be lost on copyright, but  
does it find legs to stand on in the CC BY-ND license? If, from the  
dawn of copyright hitherto, CC BY-ND had been adopted as the popular  
license to apply toward works of our time, the public position that is  
growing as a response to harsh copyright law in our actual time line  
may not exist today to include the minority of individuals are  
currently limited by the license. Most of us would be content.

What are the limits of the freedoms of a ND license?

/* Definitions http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/legalcode
b. "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License. */

Because this license is designed to preserve existing fair use and  
fair dealing or good faith rights, it seems that this is where the  
real limits of the license are to be found. Fair use and fair dealing,  
as they are legislated in the US, may deserve some scrutiny, but that  
falls outside the scope of this license.

Who is the individual whose usage of CC BY-ND licensed work is being limited?

Based on the preservation of fair use rights in the US, the individual  
being limited by CC BY-ND licensing appears to be the remix artists  
who intend to produce a commercial derivative work without the  
permission of the producer of the work. Or is this lending too much  
credit to what fair use allows? What does fair use allow in other  
regions? The way this license is applied seems as though it has the  
potential to vary quite a bit.

Is this interpretation accurate? Of whom else does this license limit  
freedom of use?

Under fair use in the US, derivative works could be made for purposes  
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or  
research.

Under the terms of ND licensing, a high value is placed on preserving  
and sharing the message embodied in the work of an artist, author or  
speaker.

Is ND licensing intended to or does it, in fact, interrupt the  
production of non-commercial works derived from CC BY-ND licensed  
works? It seems like derivative works are restricted only by the  
limits of regional fair use and fair dealing.

Is this an accurate interpretation of the license? It is what you had  
previously expected from this license?