I'm happy to see that my photo of a building by Padamashree Laurie Baker being published in you esteemed new paper, that too in editorial page. Same time it is really saddening to see that I am not attributed for the work I've done. It is really disappointing for an budding photographer like me. Simple attribution from your side would have been a moral boost to people like me.
The picture you have given in this editorial is taken by me here in Trivandrum. you can find this picture here in this link http://flickr.com/photos/kkseema/339827261/ . If you look into the copyright agreement section of the site you can see that I used
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (Creative Commons) license for my work. I do want people to use my work with their creative work.I dont want to control my work. I request only attribution for work I've done. Unfortunately you did not comply with the licensing conditions I've placed over my work and hence violated my copyright.
Flickr from you have downloaded the picture has an internal mechanism to contact the concerned person..at least you could have done that. Its my friends from goa and other parts called up to tell me that my picture has been published. I have written in my profile to please let me know before using any image. I think you owe me an explanation now.
(so far I haven't received any reply to this mail..)
Posted by Seema K K at 10:53 PM
this letter was sent by this talented photographer who distributes her collection of photographs under the creative commons license.the picture Was used by Mr Amrith Lal, in his article on Laurie Baker titled Master Builder which appeared on Editorial Page of the Times Of India e- paper on 21st april2007.however the picture was not attributed to our young friend which is a clear violation of the creative commons license . But with our little efforts, Arun M and Seema, the photographer we managed to extract an apology as well as the assurance that an acknowledgement to Seema will appear on the website. I made sure he understood what creative commons and licensing under the same implies and its importance.
Intellectual property" as a category (never mind whether it is
"propaganda" or a legitimate taxonomy--those /are/ rules of property
rather than liability) is a post-1945 conception. The US Congress
names for /committees/, as opposed to subcommittees, is fixed by
tradition and maintained by the territorialism of committee chairs;
there are no committees called "intellectual property." Primary
jurisdiction over such legislation is held in both Houses by the
Committees on the Judiciary, with theoretically secondary jurisdiction
in the Commerce Committees.
----- Mahesh M <maheshmukundan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Two days back it came to my notice that a program called Teminal
> Client uses an icon that contains the M$ Windows Logo.. I was running
> EDUBUNTU. Well it could not have been done by mistake..
Well the TS Client is meant for Windows, and using an icon representing the same is not bad, I think it is fair use.
And, going by your definition, Ubuntu is not even completely free.
Ajay Pal Singh Atwal
Dept of CSE & IT
BBSBEC, Fatehgarh Sahib
I found the following in the MP3 Wiki..
In spite of the patent restrictions, the perpetuation of the MP3 format
continues; the reasons for this appear to be the network
- familiarity with the format,
- the large quantity of music now available in the MP3 format,
- the wide variety of existing software and hardware that takes
advantage of the file format,
- the lack of
which makes MP3 files easy to edit, copy and distribute over
- the majority of home users not knowing or not caring about the
patents controversy, who often do not consider such legal issues in choosing
their music format for personal use.
Well, i dont know how many of us know this....
Its sure to be dark if you close your eyes.
" I am looking for volunteers to give me information for two reseach
projects. One project is to verify when various US law schools started
using the propaganda term "intellectual property" in names of
classes. If you are at a university which has a law school, you could
probably easily find out when it did so. The other project is to find
out when the US Congress started to have committees named
If you have information for me, please email it to rms at gnu dot orgy
minus the y.
I am looking for a couple of additional volunteers to help edit the
pages on the site for me. If you'd like to help me in this way, please
write to rms at gnu period org."
That is Richard Stallman on http://stallman.org/ Interested candidates
mail him directly. You would need to be able to do ssh to stallman.org
for the second item.
GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7
Key server: pgp.mit.edu
From: Eben Moglen <moglen(a)columbia.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
I write on behalf of the Free Software Foundation to oppose the
the W3C's adoption of a patent-friendly standards policy.
The World Wide Web cannot exist as a global and uniformly-available
facility of human society without free software. Apache, Perl
PHP--and literally hundreds of other immediately recognizable aspects
of web technology--have been outgrowths of the free software
production model. Without free software, the web would be a
commercialized outgrowth of a few proprietary software producers, and
it would be incapable of serving, as it now does, as a force for
Because the Web employs no technology not based around completely open
standards, software implementing every single facility of Web life can
be produced in the free software model, and is therefore available for
free modification and improvement all over the world, supplied at the
marginal cost of distribution to any programmer--no matter how
financially constrained--who wishes to produce new facilities and
opportunities for users.
"Reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing of patented technology
embodied in W3C standards will eliminate free software production from
any area of Web facilities subject to those standards. Such standards
will therefore provide a basis to "embrace and extend" the Web under
proprietary control, excluding competition from free software,
limiting technical innovation and risking the social utility of the
W3C standards should not incorporate any patented technology. If
patented technology is, for whatever reason, absolutely necessary to
the articulation of Web standards, only such patents should be
considered for inclusion as are licensed under terms compatible with
section 7 of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which is the
worldwide standard in free software licensing. Patents licensed
compatibly with GPL can be practiced without royalty or recordkeeping
obligations, and are thus useful in software that any user can modify
or redistribute. The W3C patent policy should not be RAND, it should
Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382
Professor of Law fax: 212-854-7946 moglen@
Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu
General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu
Prof moglen will be in india sometime in june this year, we can probably use this opportunity to hear from the hors'es mouth himself about GPLV3.....cann we organise something for the same
We are planning a discussion to understand GNU GPL version 3 and how
it is going to affect the FOSS eco-system. We have not decided on a
place yet. Suggestions welcome. Anyone coming for the discussions are
expected to have read the third discussion draft of GPL version 3 and
preferably looked into articles and discussions (slashdot, digg ...)
on issues related to GPL v3 like version 2 incompatibility, anti-DRM
provision, Novell-Microsoft patent deal and provisions in GPL to block
such deals in future...
You can sign up at
Also put in your thoughts on the talk page.
Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now!