Re: [Publicity] Draft blog on release management principles

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/16/2014 10:22 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:

On 16/06/2014 09:52, George Dunlap wrote:

On 06/13/2014 03:17 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:

On 13/06/2014 15:00, Dario Faggioli wrote:

On gio, 2014-06-12 at 11:43 +0100, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:

On 12 Jun 2014, at 11:40, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 06/12/2014 08:39 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:

Indeed. I just read it, and it's really a great post.

Perhaps... Adding a picture (a generic one, don't have anything
particular in mind) somewhere? But not that important.

You mean something like one of these?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nogood/2190795248
...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinl8888/119712943

I like these, in particlar the first one, but I am not 100% sure whether we can use them (non-commercial use only)

Isn't xenproject.org a non-profit? Or a not-for-profit?

Yes we are non-profit, but non-profit != non-commercial in a CC context and I always err on the side of caution. The reason is that CC's NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation." ... you could argue that the web presence of every open source project is directed toward increasing the market share of that project and that any content published is thus "directed towards commercial advantage".

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Does_my_use_violate_the_NonCommercial_clause_of_the_licenses.3F

Unfortunately that's basically completely useless.

There's an actually informative write-up here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234435/

Relevant quotes:

" The full text no longer uses the term âcommercial purposesâ, but only the concepts of âintent or directionâ and âcommercial advantagesâ. To our knowledge, the concept of âcommercial advantagesâ is at present neither defined by CC nor in the law of most countries"

and:

"
For example, a charitable non-profit organization may sell a calendar with CC-NC-licensed images as a means to raise funds. This is considered to be commercial use even by permissive interpretations of the NC-clause (e.g.,ÂKleinman 2008), despite the fact that the ultimate intention for the funds is a charitable cause. But what about a general brochure, distributed free-of-charge? Increases in the membership base or in public recognition translate into a commercial advantage in the form of higher income through membership fees or voluntary contributions. To some extent, non-profit organizations compete with each other for donations and funds that the members of the public are willing to spend on membership fees. If a non-profit nature conservation organization uses an NC-licensed image in an advertisement brochure and the paid membership increases, it could be argued â similarly to the case of the calendar â that this use of the licensed work was primarily intended and directed toward commercial advantage."

I took a look at shutterstock, and found some ones that might be suitable:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-58404295/stock-photo-poker-player-with-red-aces-showing-in-sunglasses.html?src="">

Not nearly as cool as the aviator glasses one, but OK. Another one:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-39769735/stock-photo-great-time-for-you-luck.html?src="">

The thing I like about this one is that is actually has directly to do with how poker is used in the article: ace-10 is a tolerable hand, but there's a significant chance you'll end up with nothing but an ace at the end; gambling that you'll get something more (a flush, or as in this case, a royal flush) is a risk.

Thoughts?

Â-George

_______________________________________________
Publicity mailing list
Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/publicity