license

(See update at the bottom of this post)

One of the interesting outcomes of the Red Hat situation:

Distribution of GPLv2-licensed code requires no restrictions be placed on downstream users rights to use and redistribute the code (whether they obtained it freely or paid for access):

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients exercise of the rights granted herein.

Does threatening retaliation (account suspension) for sharing code count as a 'restriction' on exercising a user's rights?

So far I've heard from three corporate open source licensing experts the answer is no.

According to them, the EULA only deals with an account-holder's ability to acquire services from Red Hat (a contract).

I feel like a broken record... yet again, I was perusing the Internet (this time, Twitter), and then I noticed an illustration—a very familiar one—of the Roman collar (the white collar worn by priests):

A great peace always came over me when I saw the Roman Collar, a rep of the high priest, Jesus Christ, was present pic.twitter.com/9qH5VghciI

— Chris Boutin (@Boutleg) June 15, 2014

@Boutleg didn't create the graphic; it looks like uCatholic originally posted the graphic on Facebook, where it was shared and reshared thousands of times, and liked (through that network of shares) many thousands of times.

As a Catholic who's worked in many different media fields (newspapers, photography, video production, and web development), I've seen a very wide array of copyright violations, improper media usage, and misuse of licensed assets. This seems to happen more in the non-profit world, where there is little or no budget for acquiring stock images, etc.

I'm extremely generous with my licensing for photos and other media I produce; typically, if someone asks to use a photo of mine, I'll send them a full-resolution JPEG and a license that allows them to use it for any non-profit cause.

However, what really gets under my skin is when I find my photos (especially) used in YouTube videos, for articles, and on posters, when I have never even been asked for permission, and when the photos clearly have 'All rights reserved' or some form of Creative Commons license.

The lifted photo.

Finding guidelines for acquiring a marriage license in St. Louis County is somewhat a pain in the rear. Because it's a convoluted mess of links to get to the information you need, I thought I'd put it a little more succinctly, for those who, like me, just want to get it over with...