|
|
A big +1 to Jef. This is precisely why we've avoided the incorporation of
"content" so assiduously.
The ROMs, it seems to me, are yet another example of content with
ambiguous licensing.
Code, in our world, has very clear licensing parameters; either it
conforms to an acceptable license, or it doesn't. Very black and white.
Content is seldom that simple, because it seldom has copyright status
explicitly associated with it in the same way that code does.
What we need is an unambiguous policy around shipping content.
If that policy is: "don't ship content," then we're done.
If that policy is: "explicit assignment to the public domain," then we
need a way to keep track of those assignments.
If that policy is: "keep track of the various content licenses, like the
various docs licenses and the CC licenses, and like the CC:SA and so
forth," then we need to figure out which content licenses we support, and
which we don't. And that, folks, will take time.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 9/1/05, Paul F. Johnson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Eh? The ROMs are essential for all of the 8 bit machines and the wording
> > from Amstrad is that as long as you're not selling (which we're not),
> > then you have their blessing.
>
> That is absolutely not good enough. At some point in the future...
> there very well maybe be iso images of Extras that we as a project
> will be encouraging vendors to sell.. vendors like cheapbytes for
> example. Not only that but it has to be clear that such 3rd parties or
> any party who wants to make a fedora based distro can take anything
> from Extras, rebrand the collection of software and "sell" it via
> pressed media or binary downloads as is the case for all other
> projects in Extras. This isn't a self-serving community, we have to
> think hard about the potential infringement any derivative work might
> run afoul of. If people aren't free to make a derivative work that
> includes these ROM packages and sell that derivative work..then that
> package has no place in Extras. And frankly its just not clear to me
> that the one group posting provides enough legal cover. Let's put it
> this way.. if they had just said "no commercial use" then the ROMS
> would not be allowable. Instead they say something much more vague
> that may or may not be interpreted as "no commercial use."
>
>
> > It does get a bit fuzzy in that if you're charging, as long as it's not for
> > the ROMS, they're
> > cool with it.
>
> The wording in the groups posting...is extremely vague here. Who
> exactly gets to make the judgement as to whether the cost of a future
> pressed ISO sent to you in the mail or a future binary download you
> paid access for includes a value placed on the ROM packages or not?
> This sounds to me like its open to rather wide interpretation...and
> that could very well mean a lawsuit if the copyrights change hands
> again..or if the company management changes. If i generously
> interpret what that group posting said..sure it sounds okay..but
> looking at it from the standpoint of potential legal problems. the one
> phrase "in any sense, charging" is a big red flag to me.
>
>
> -jef
>
> --
> fedora-extras-list mailing list
> fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
>
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
|
|