Le 18/02/2011 17:28, Pascal Bleser a écrit :
Say that I, citizien of Belgium, acting under Belgian law, make some content. In that case the content I produced is protected de-facto by the copyright and intellectual property / ownership laws that apply to Belgium.
probably not. The only court decision I know of states that it's the country *of the reader* that matters (so google or ebay was obliged to restrict access by IP country). It may also be the country of the server location, or of the server owner. Think that nobody can know where you were when writing. My be you were travelling in Alaska :-))
mind the license it is under, some of those laws always apply.
in any case, the local law apply, where the problem is seen by a court many commercial licences state that the competend court is the one of the localisation of the owner, I don't know if this is valid.
To the extent of my knowledge, there is no such thing as an "international law", or an "international copyright".
of course there are, and a lot of them, for example the Bern convention that may apply to us: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html
You confuse philosophical with extremism.
did you notice the 'free distribution' FSF page http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html not even Debian is on it. And FSF is owner of the various GPL that apply to most of the software we distribute, so we have to deal with
There are no "non-free" CC licenses, except when you leave out "ShareAlike".
what most are non free? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons#Types_of_Creative_Commons_lice... only the first two are free, all the ones with NC or ND are non free (as said by Wikipedia)
Sorry, but I highly disagree here, the CC licenses are much easier to understand. When you go to the CC website where each license variant is explained, it very clearly lists what may and what may not be done with it.
Example: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
It really cannot be any simpler than that.
even simpler http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.fr.html#WhyUseGPL but none have any meaning else than the FSF of CC opinion. If not we never would nave needed the present discussion :-))
I don't see why we couldn't at least have a discussion right now, and collect information already.
* what licence we will have for any "official" openSUSE product;
Define "official openSUSE product".
owned by the foundation. domain name opensuse.org, official logo
* what licences make a product accepted in the OSS repo, in the non-OSS, completely refused...
That's already defined since a long time... (any OSI compliant license).
an other thread I wont quote here shows that it's not always the case.
And the topic, here, is the content on the wiki (and probably also on OWN and planet).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/WTFPL :-)) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgxog7_clip-l-ombre-et-la-lumiere-3-bad-pig... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGgv_ZFtV14 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org