Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 166

@Shamar @clacke I've read the definition of "wrapper" in your license text. It seems to mean any program that uses the code under your license as a component? So AFAICT you have introduced an entirely new piece of jargon, with no relevant legal definition, which only serves to confuse people trying to understand what your license does and doesn't allow us to do with the licensed code. How does this help anyone?

New #Disintermedia blog post on 'Encouraging Independent Media Producers to Publish Their Video on PeerTube':
https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2018/11/27/encouraging-independent-media-producers-to-publish-their-video-on-peertube/

@Shamar I had a skim read, but #IANAL and I struggled to understand it. Have it been checked by a lawyer experienced in copyright law to see if it's actually enforceable (in your jurisdiction, let alone globally)? If and when the FSF or the OSI (ideally both) add it to their lists of approved licenses, I might take more of an interest.

@deadsuperhero Archive.org is another obvious possibility. I guess you could start casually putting some feelers out, and get to know what orgs are out there that might be interested in working with you? I suspect the fact that you're approaching them with a live site, rather than just a project proposal wanting funding, makes it much more likely people will be interested ;-P

@deadsuperhero I'm aware of a bunch of orgs whose names suggest they might be potentially umbrellas for VidCommons, such as the Participatory Culture Foundation, Open Knowledge Foundation, Free Knowledge Institute, QuestionCopyright.org, C3S (German commons collecting society working on #AdoreMusic), and so on. No idea of the status of any of them, what capacity they have, and whether or how being the umbrella for VidCommons would fit their current projects goals.

@deadsuperhero I was actually referring to the Us Now homepage, rather than VidCommons itself ;-) But now that you mention it, I'd say it's worth looking into. The CreativeCommons org seems to confine its activities to stewarding and promoting the licenses and their use, which is probably sensible, as it would be easy for an org whose work touches such a wide range of areas to suffer from crippling mission creep. The org formerly known as Students for Free Culture seems dormant, if not extinct.

@Shamar @demonshreder what does this license do that the GPL or Apache 2.0 doesn't do? Why do we need yet another license?

@Shamar @demonshreder
> "The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this License does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License. Such provision is to be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it valid and enforceable."

*shudder*

You're a scholar and a gentleman @deadsuperhero ! Sadly the ephemeral nature and maintenance burden of self-hosted websites, with unique domain names, is probably one of the reasons so many people put their stuff on one of the #DataFarms instead :( This is why I'm more a fan of community-hosting than self-hosting, because community institutions are more likely to be able to maintain commons over time than individuals, however motivated and skilled they are.

@Shamar @demonshreder
"The proliferation of different free software licenses is a significant problem in the free software community today, both for users and developers."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Introduction

@Shamar @demonshreder *sigh* all this does is vastly reduces the likelihood that anyone will use your software, or re-use your code, because they need to consult a lawyer to be sure they understand what they can and can't do with it. See:
https://punkish.org/Shouldn't-Wouldn't-Couldn't

@el_joa do you think there's any chance the C3S might be able to offer bridging funding to the Free Music Archive, to help keep them alive while they look for other sources of funding?

@el_joa @switchingsocial @funkwhale brilliant! I've been thinking about trying to set something like that up. #AdoreMusic looks fairly Europe-specific, so I might still need to, but it would make it a *lot* easier to have a working model to point people out.

@deadsuperhero hmm. I see the problem. Is there no CC license icon in the video itself? I supposed you could contact the film-makers directly, and ask them to clarify? I think it's:
http://banyak.co.uk/

@demonshreder I'm not against the PPL in principle, and there may well be use cases where it is the right tool. But some #PlatformCooperatives have started to use it for software, and I heard a lot of positive talk about this at the two conferences I went to this year. This concerns me, because it means a lot of people who support the software commons do not understand software freedom, or the fragmentation caused by incompatible licensing. See:
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License

Education is needed here

@deadsuperhero I really wish we could get the directors of 'The Corporation' to put that under CC license, and I reckon they'd probably be willing. But they might not have the right to allow all the archival clips used in the film to be distributed that way :(

@deadsuperhero That said, I notice you've got the #PioneerOne on VidCommons. If memory serves, that was originally funded and hosted on Vodo. One Mile Away is another CC-licensed documentary I downloaded from Vodo and thought was brilliant.

@deadsuperhero I'm disappointed but not surprised. The busking principle ('give what you can') seldom seems to work out online, and I've seen a lot of projects try it and abandon it. Or at least supplement it with another model where people get something more tangible for their money, or pay for a premium service on a regular schedule.

@Blort @switchingsocial @funkwhale fair enough. The CC licenses are visible in their interface, just ... de-emphasized. To be fair, they are running a business, not an activist rallying platform. That's what sites like the #FreeMusicArchive are for, and why it's so tragic if we lose them.