[Sussex] A SLUG Podcast - Another Way to Promote the Club

[Mark Harrison (Groups)]

On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 13:54 +0100, Steve Dobson wrote:
> 
> That is the argument for not having "No Derivative Works".  But at
> the 
> end of the day any programme we produce is more our ideas and thoughts
> and therefore differs from source code which compile to a tool.

I have to confess, I don't really understand the distinction. Whether
I'm writing code or a speech, it's "compiled" into something (an
executable or a recording). You may see the analogy as artificial... but
I see the distinction as artificial :-)

> We are going to have some people before the camera.  We are going to
> be
> presenting our way of doing things.  I would not want someone taking 
> what we said and changing it to say something different, but still
> make
> it sound as if I said it.

That wasn't my understanding of what "derivative works" were. My
understanding was that someone else could, say, take the script, and
re-use it with different actors, or incorporate parts of it into a
longer programme... but could not, in any case, make it look / sound as
if you had said something.

> Changing a tool I built to do something different is not the same as
> changing something I said.  That is why I lean more placing "No
> Derivative Works" restriction than not.

My understanding of the CC licence is different. No-one, even with
derivate rights, could change what you said and make it look as if you'd
said the changed version. What they could do is say something of their
own, including some words that you had used, without fear of being
persecuted.

Let me pick an example from my own work. At a speech I heard on Monday,
the speaker used the phrase "tiptoeing through life, hoping to make it
quietly to the end", which I liked. I wasn't speaking that night, but am
next month for the same organisation.

In the bar afterwards, I approached the speaker, and asked her
permission to use the phrase in a future speech of my own. She
consented. This is my understanding of "derivative works". I can use the
turn of phrase in my own speech, perhaps to refer to a different set of
circumstances to the one in which she'd used it. Even with this
"derivative works" permission she granted me, I cannot purport that SHE
said anything different, or that she would in any way support my use of
that phrase.

Another example might be this email. I have quoted your email, and
responded to it. However, I have made it clear what was your text, and
what is mine. I have not re-written what you said, merely added to, and
responded to it.


Regards,

Mark