[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

[geni]

On 21 February 2011 19:39, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/21 geni <geniice at gmail.com>:
> (...)
>>> What is more complicated is what happens in a movie theatre. In my
>>> opinion, the theatre owner should tell the viewers where the movie is
>>> available for download on the internet.
>>
>> Look at you. You are stuck in one mode of thinking. Why should a web
>> based version of the video even exist.
>
> The yet to be written Free Video License might say that this
> requirement applies only in the case when the original creator first
> released the first version on the internet.

"released the first version on the internet"

I do so love it when people try and use the term internet in licensing
terms.  May I draw you attention to RFC 1149 or as it is better known
IP over Avian Carriers? The internet is ill defined and you've just
given me another term to abuse

> Alternative ways of providing the original version might be allowed
> with a wording similar to that of GFDL for transparent copies : offer
> to send them by traditional mail, at a reasonable cost.

Licenses work better if people don't have to spend time arguing over
what counts as a reasonable cost.


> I was thinking about a Powerpoint presentation.

Well yes thats rather the problem. There are also slideshows with
actual physical slides. I've got some around somewhere.

-- 
geni