Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?
In a landmark decision a Dutch court has ruled in favour of a Creative Commons licence in a case involving pictures published by MTV personality Adam Curry. The pictures were reproduced by a Dutch newspaper without Curry's permission.
[ED: This is just one of the reasons I dislike the proliferation of supposed variations of Open Source and Free licenses for software: it is just too easy to make a good faith error that hurts too many. - HC]
I have to disagree that this was a good faith error. As the court found, a professional publication has a responsibility to perform "due dilligence". The misleading notice is not an excuse. This was a case of blatantly ignoring their responsibility. It would have been all to easy for them to have just paid more attention to the information on the web page. It would have been far less costly as well.
I also disagree that this has anything at all to do with proliferation or variations of FOSS licenses. The publication would be required to perform due dilligence in any case. Additionally, given that many people view 'content' as being somewhat different from software, the Creative Commons licenses are an invaluable contribution to society.
For example, if I were writing a novel, I would release it under a CC license that allows modification. The same goes for a manual. However, "Penguin in the Pew" is not modifiable because I present arguments. In my view, shared by others, arguments of this nature are not modifiable. I'm sure that some might prefer to allow their arguments (or theses or apologies) to be modified. However, I do not. Most FOSS licenses do not offer that option. The Creative Commons licenses do.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
I also disagree that this has anything at all to do with proliferation or variations of FOSS licenses. The publication would be required to perform due dilligence in any case. Additionally, given that many people view 'content' as being somewhat different from software, the Creative Commons licenses are an invaluable contribution to society.
For example, if I were writing a novel, I would release it under a CC license that allows modification. The same goes for a manual. However, "Penguin in the Pew" is not modifiable because I present arguments. In my view, shared by others, arguments of this nature are not modifiable. I'm sure that some might prefer to allow their arguments (or theses or apologies) to be modified. However, I do not. Most FOSS licenses do not offer that option. The Creative Commons licenses do.