Development of Creative Commons licenses

["B. Jean" <veille.jus AT gmail.com>]

drew Roberts a écrit :

200707230957.08981.zotz AT 100jamz.com" type="cite">

On Monday 23 July 2007 09:34 am, B. Jean wrote:
  

I know that, as well as I know Debian attitude. However, the license is
unadapted for these sorts of works (by example, you don't have right to
publish the content on tv or website — useless for software... It's
real, you can have look : right to use, to copy, to adapt, modify, to
distribute the copy, etc. ; but not to represent) . By the way, note
that the GPL v3 is broader than the v2 ; consequently, theses critics
would disappear

    

What is this right that the GPL does not provide? When you say represent, is 
that the same as a public performance?
  

I'm not sure about equivalent, but It should be public performance, but not only. For example, I represent a work if I sing on the Tv : I just give direct access to the work (I've the idea, but the word can be wrong, does somebody can rectify me if necessary ?) ; it's the same on Internet.

200707230957.08981.zotz AT 100jamz.com" type="cite">

You can't put the work on a web site? People do that all the time with a web 
link to the cvs or other version control system. Or am I misunderstanding you 
big time?
  

What you can't do, is to display the code on the website. But you can distribute copy of it... I think that characterize software's particularity : you don't need to read the code on the website, the tv, radio, etc. ; you just download it and read it in your private area.

It's ridiculous, but you just don't have this right (conversely, with the GPL v3, you can do " anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law ". That is broad enough ^^)·

Well, for precision, just have a look on the Rosen's book (his English is better ;-) )

Freely,
Benjamin

200707230957.08981.zotz AT 100jamz.com" type="cite">

Best regards,
Ben
            

all the best,

drew