麻豆官网首页入口

I shouldn't have used the Apache License as an example, but therein lies the problem. There are numerous open source licenses out there, some more restrictive than others. But many of them are hard to fully understand due to the legal terminology.

You *think* you understand them completely, but then there's always some clause or exception that could be interpreted differently and you might actually be in violation of the license.

The Create Commons ( has made a good attempt to simplify open source licenses, by breaking them down into 4 logical "blocks".

It also took the time to go through a number of existing licenses and gave them their CC-equivalents (in other words: "This license basically says you can..." + one or more of the 4 basic "blocks").

Now, the 麻豆官网首页入口's permissive license appears to be straight forward. But as with the other (non CC) licenses, things might get lost in the forest of legal terminology. Neither is there a CC equivalence with those 4 basic "blocks", because of the fact you cannot claim endorsement by the 麻豆官网首页入口 or use the derivative work on websites aimed at young children.

Add to this mix that there are people who simply do not have any idea about Open Source in general (I had to explain this to a friendly lady at the DMS Watson, while we were waiting to start the CIBER test). So if someone would like to have a go at editing rushes, where does he/she look for clarification on the 麻豆官网首页入口 permissive license? The "Can I ... ?" questions, if you will.

So perhaps something that can be done is to have a little explanation a-la Creative Commons, along with a short FAQ?

Personally I feel that the 麻豆官网首页入口 Permissive License is well within the range of reason and should be considered true open source. I can apply the same freedom/restrictions to the rushes as I am to FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) that I'm developing / assisting with.

There are a couple of different issues here.

One is that the release of the rushes is being treated as representative of the production as a whole鈥攖his is to be expected. The general expectation is that in an 鈥渙pen source鈥� project, this is the basis for all (released) aspects of it.

The fact is, the license itself is not permissive when compared to most. It鈥檚 permissive compared to the default (i.e., no rights at all), but when compared to most open source and the Creative Commons licenses, it鈥檚 quite restrictive (and, indeed, is flawed to an extent).

鈥淥pen source鈥� itself is quite a specific term and has a fairly well-understood meaning. Indeed, Creative Commons quite deliberately steers clear of it, because some of the CC licenses are at odds with the principles of open source.

First, there鈥檚 the distinction between 鈥減ersonal鈥�, 鈥渃haritable鈥�, 鈥渆ducational鈥� and 鈥渃ommercial鈥� entities. This arguably the most flawed aspect of it at all, because what constitutes 鈥渃ommercial use鈥� is rarely clear. In terms of Creative Commons, the situation in this regard is so bad that the only advice is to contact the licensor to ask them what they mean.

Second, there are the 鈥溾�xcept these purposes鈥︹�� clauses (搂2.3.5). These are about about as far removed from 鈥渙pen source鈥� or 鈥渃reative commons鈥� as you can get within this context. The illegality aspect is simply noise, as something that鈥檚 illegal is illegal irrespective of what the license says.

Within this section:

鈥渋s not open access鈥� 鈥� what does this mean? It鈥檚 not defined anywhere.

鈥渕ight be perceived as damaging the 麻豆官网首页入口's reputation for accuracy or impartiality鈥� 鈥� perceived by whom? 鈥渕ight be鈥�?

鈥渋s intended for or targeted at children who are under 13 years old鈥� 鈥� why?

The no-advertising clause (搂2.3.6) 鈥� huh?

Beyond the general craziness of this clause, what does 鈥渙r otherwise commercialise the Work or Derivative Work in any way鈥� mean?

(Examples: I want to put it on my CV and I get a job offer as a result; I do it as a lunchtime project at work and my boss wants to put it on the company website as an example of the skillset we have)

The 鈥溌槎构偻滓橙肟� Application鈥� display clause (搂2.3.8) is very unclear鈥攇iven that the license includes a grant for use of the 鈥溌槎构偻滓橙肟� Application鈥�, it鈥檚 not at all obvious what exactly the 鈥渟ole editorial control鈥澨齛pplies to, and in what contexts.

Typo 鈥� 鈥�2.3鈥� should be 鈥�2.4鈥� (and so on).

Sharing (搂2.3) is very fuzzy. It鈥檚 not entirely clear what somebody wishing to distribute鈥檚 obligations are from reading it (it can be inferred from context, but the wording is very poor).

Logo use (搂2.5) trademark law possibly covers this anyway (rendering the clause moot), but I鈥檓 not clear on how the logo alone isn鈥檛 derivative work as specified by the rest of the license (if it鈥檚 included in the work, as indicated by 搂2.5). No other clause actually references the logos, so there shouldn鈥檛 be an expectation of grant-of-rights anyway.

Indemnity (搂5) 鈥� is this a joke?

Modifications & Notifications (搂7.4): you simply can鈥檛 that. It鈥檚 not Terms and Conditions for a website (plus, how would you notify people?)

The whole thing reads as a license for three separate things (the rushes, the logos, the player) all of which have different (and slightly conflicting) terms. None of it is particularly representative 鈥渙pen source鈥�, and all of it is quite restrictive.

The only thing it honestly encourages me to do is steer well clear. I鈥檓 not willing to risk inadvertently breaching the license, no matter what assurances the production team might give (ultimately, it wouldn鈥檛 be their decision).

On an utterly unrelated note from the license鈥擜 QuickTime movie (.mov) is just a container format, and contain anything from MPEG-1 to Avid DNxHD video and a similar gamut for audio.

Thanks for these comments - I'm pleased that you've taken the trouble to look through the licence. There are a couple of points I'd like to make. The first is that the Digital Revolution Licence shouldn't be judged as an 'open source' licence. It's an experimental permissive licence that allows for download and editing of programme rushes, before the programme is transmitted and it has to operate within the 麻豆官网首页入口's editorial and other policies. As it's an experimental licence, I really welcome your critiques - they'll be very helpful when we look at where this experiment has worked, where it hasn't, and how we might improve similar projects in the future.

That brings me on to another point - using the word 'open source' to describe the Digital Revolution project. As I say above, we've tried to be careful not to describe this permissive licence as open source, but in some places the phrase has been attached to the whole project (although we also call it 'open and collaborative'). I think there's a debate to have about what 'open source' means, when it starts to be applied outside its traditional realm of software and licences. What is , or ? What is an open source documentary?

If you define open source as , then the fact we have opened up the discussion around programme ideas, used Delicious for all , and given access to some (but admittedly not all) of our rushes, puts us in the right space. I can assure you that having that phrase in our minds has transformed the way we've worked, and the way we communicate the project to people from a range of backgrounds, some very non-technical. The open source movement should be proud that their philosophy is starting to be felt in a wide range of disciplines. That doesn鈥檛 mean that the attempt to mash different cultures together is easy or comfortable, or that we are getting it entirely right in our first attempt here.

Your last paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

The disagreement probably stems from the purist view of what defines open source software (such as . In that sense, no, the 麻豆官网首页入口's permissive license would not qualify as true open source (it restricts commercial endeavours as well as a certain group of people).

In my view, if you are given access to the raw source - be it software source code, raw film footage, unedited music clips, design plans for a house or car, barley for your micro-brew beer - and permitted to manipulate it and redistribute it, then I see that as open source. A restriction (ie., a "permissive license") does not necessarily make it a "closed source" product.

It鈥檚 worth bearing in mind that open source productions are not a new thing, and so a default expectation is one of conforming with the existing use. See, for example, , or , both of which are 鈥渙pen source productions鈥� (they have always been called that), and so are a pretty good bar to measure against.

鈥淎 restriction (ie., a "permissive license") does not necessarily make it a "closed source" product.鈥�

No, it doesn鈥檛 make it 鈥渃losed source鈥�, but it doesn鈥檛 necessarily make it 鈥渙pen source鈥� either.

There鈥檚 a (relatively broad) class of things which fall into a middle-ground: they鈥檙e not 鈥渙pen source鈥� by most commonly-held definitions, but they鈥檙e clearly not closed-source either. There are plenty of other terms one could use to describe them鈥�

If I were to use some of this footage in combination with other original footage to promote the creation of an online community would I be in breach of the liscence?
(excuse me I'm not able for the lingo)

I am a Teaching Fellow at Keele University and I run a course on web2.0, mass collaboration, citizen journalism and the rise of the professional amateur so obviously the virtual revolution programming and material has been of great interest to me and my students.

I feel it would be interesting (and a working demonstration of these emerging communication technologies) to produce a a film introducing aspects of my course content with your rushes. Indeed, understandably many of the commentaries available are by individuals we examine in the current course (Keen, Leadbeater, Shirky and so on). I hope to edit this over the summer but it occurs to me that the process of downloading each and every interview is quite laborious. Is there no way of accessing a bulk download of the rushes?