Comments on: Where Creative Commons botched http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:18:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: pundit http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/comment-page-1/#comment-178 pundit Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/#comment-178 Are you talking about some subset or particular usage of Creative Commons' licensing? Because you obviously know that they provide a family of licenses, both allowing and preventing commercial usage. The searchable media on their site can also be filtered to provide those that allow commercial usage.<p/>I guess I just don't understand what exactly you're having a proble with. Are you talking about some subset or particular usage of Creative Commons’ licensing? Because you obviously know that they provide a family of licenses, both allowing and preventing commercial usage. The searchable media on their site can also be filtered to provide those that allow commercial usage.

I guess I just don’t understand what exactly you’re having a proble with.

]]> By: Christian http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/comment-page-1/#comment-179 Christian Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/#comment-179 I am talking about the fact that they have a 'non-commercial' option at all. To compare with open source software, I am sure if the GPL had a non-commerical clause, even an optional one, it would have meant GNU/Linux wouldn't be anywhere close to where it is today. I am talking about the fact that they have a ‘non-commercial’ option at all. To compare with open source software, I am sure if the GPL had a non-commerical clause, even an optional one, it would have meant GNU/Linux wouldn’t be anywhere close to where it is today.

]]> By: sebest http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/comment-page-1/#comment-180 sebest Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/#comment-180 I think that svg + smil wouldn't be enought to be a flash killer.<p/>We definitely need a good authoring tool. Flash is an authoring tool + a player.<p/>I think it's also one of the reason SMIL never really took off: it is missing a good authoring tool. The only thing close to this is limsee (<a href="http://wam.inrialpes.fr/software/limsee2/">http://wam.inrialpes.fr/software/limsee2/</a>) I think that svg + smil wouldn’t be enought to be a flash killer.

We definitely need a good authoring tool. Flash is an authoring tool + a player.

I think it’s also one of the reason SMIL never really took off: it is missing a good authoring tool. The only thing close to this is limsee (http://wam.inrialpes.fr/software/limsee2/)

]]> By: Alex http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/comment-page-1/#comment-181 Alex Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/#comment-181 I don't really understand your comment about the Gnash licensing - why does being under the GPL mean that people have to wait five years to use it? Where does that five years come from?<p/>As for the usefulness without codecs, I agree and disagree. mp3 support is probably the more important of the codecs, but there isn't really a reason why Gnash can't just output the stream and the user/packager decides what happens to it (e.g., pipe it to gstreamer?) I don’t really understand your comment about the Gnash licensing – why does being under the GPL mean that people have to wait five years to use it? Where does that five years come from?

As for the usefulness without codecs, I agree and disagree. mp3 support is probably the more important of the codecs, but there isn’t really a reason why Gnash can’t just output the stream and the user/packager decides what happens to it (e.g., pipe it to gstreamer?)

]]> By: Richard http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/comment-page-1/#comment-182 Richard Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/01/10/where-creative-commons-botched/#comment-182 This seems to by quite a controversal post. I like the Idea of a GNU Flash player, and I don't think SVG and stuff is a viable option, because: There is already more than a truckload of flash material on the web, whether you like it or not, and people need a way to view it. And concerning the mp3 situation: Do we really have to wait 5 years? Actually I can listen to mp3 files today on my computer without paying to fraunhofer. How do I do it? I download the software and play it. It's that easy.<p/>Considering that I think of software patents and similar stuff as immoral, it's my moral duty to disobey them. ;)<p/>-Richard This seems to by quite a controversal post. I like the Idea of a GNU Flash player, and I don’t think SVG and stuff is a viable option, because: There is already more than a truckload of flash material on the web, whether you like it or not, and people need a way to view it. And concerning the mp3 situation: Do we really have to wait 5 years? Actually I can listen to mp3 files today on my computer without paying to fraunhofer. How do I do it? I download the software and play it. It’s that easy.

Considering that I think of software patents and similar stuff as immoral, it’s my moral duty to disobey them. ;)

-Richard

]]>