[pp.int.general] free software video streaming
illunatic at greenpirate.org
illunatic at greenpirate.org
Wed Feb 20 13:28:32 CET 2013
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
> 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
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
/* The freedom to use works as defined by
########## 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
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
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?
More information about the pp.international.general