2009-10-29
No 9.10 for me
No Ubuntu 9.10 for me on my development VM tonight. I guess the update servers are a little loaded, so I best leave it until they calm down a little.
2009-10-28
Video
I think I forgot to post an update on the Lacie 1TB NAS drive, which I managed to get root on and it's relationship with the TV. Video works brilliantly if you get something encoded in the very limited filetypes that the Bravia will play. Fortunately archive.org is chock full of MPEG files that play fine. The NAS being a relatively lower power usage device (I hope), I often shell into it on a morning, start a background wget going and come home from work to a bunch more old public domain films. Some of them are going to be just the ticket at Gemma's 1950's halloween birthday party at the weekend.
An interesting one on CC licensing
Gemma has just had an issue where she has been notified of one of her images of her sisters dog being used on an anti-dog site (I'm not going to link to it). Naturally this annoys her since to use an image of a very placid dog in an article suggesting that Staffordshire Bull Terriers are a dangerous breed is not really on. So she's not really happy about that use, and by association is considering not using creative commons licensing on her photographs any more.
It turns out that the image wasn't attributed, so at least she has grounds to ask for it's removal, which she promptly did. The response received was laughable really, amounting to a, "How do I know who you are, and that you are not some 'Pit Nutter'?" I mean -as if someone who wanted to attack that site would do so by the request of the removal of an image. The reply also pointed us to the fact that the story had been ripped from the South Shields Gazette, who had also not attributed the photograph. Lazy, lazy journalism. Cue an e-mail to the editor, again asking for the removal of the photograph.
So an interesting one. I'm all for the commons, and I see it as my way of giving something back for all of the benefits I've gained from things like open source software. I will more than likely keep a default license of CC-BY on my photographs, Gemma probably won't.
It turns out that the image wasn't attributed, so at least she has grounds to ask for it's removal, which she promptly did. The response received was laughable really, amounting to a, "How do I know who you are, and that you are not some 'Pit Nutter'?" I mean -as if someone who wanted to attack that site would do so by the request of the removal of an image. The reply also pointed us to the fact that the story had been ripped from the South Shields Gazette, who had also not attributed the photograph. Lazy, lazy journalism. Cue an e-mail to the editor, again asking for the removal of the photograph.
So an interesting one. I'm all for the commons, and I see it as my way of giving something back for all of the benefits I've gained from things like open source software. I will more than likely keep a default license of CC-BY on my photographs, Gemma probably won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)