Google数字图书馆项目似乎成了过街老鼠，人人喊打，除了中国、美国、德国、印度等这些 大 国 官 方 反对外，各方反对声音也是此起彼伏。
blog详细讲述了围绕Google数字图书馆项目的四方博弈，甚至连自由软件基金会（FSF）昨天也公开表示反对Google的图书和解协议修订版，提出Google的协议没有考虑到自由文档许可，如CC和GFDL。
以下引用该文： Google在美国同作者、出版商、经销商、图书馆、社会团体等等方面就有关Google数字图书馆项目打的官司又走到了一个关键点。自2008年10月双方达成初步和解协议以来，2009年11月9日，Google又推出一个修改版本的协议。根据法庭的安排，上周四的1月28日是各方对这个协议发表意见的最后日期，而本月的18日美国法院将对此案进行听证….Google认为它的扫描活动，以及它在网页上显示4行字的行为都是毫无疑问的“合理使用”，和读者到书店里翻书是一样的，而著作权一方就不是这么看，他们认为所有的数字化的活动都是一次Copy，不管是你扫描本身，还是在用户的电脑屏幕上显示出来，甚至你显示多少次就是多少次Copy，所以你这么用就不是合理使用，而是侵犯版权。
Free Software Foundation files new objection to amended Google Book Search settlement
BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA — Monday, February 1, 2010 — The Free Software Foundation (FSF) filed another objection in court to the proposed amended Google Book Search settlement (The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc.). The objection notes that proposed amendments which discuss works under free licenses unfairly burden their authors with ensuring license compliance, and urges the court to reject the proposed settlement unless it incorporates terms that better address the needs of authors using free licenses like the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
The GFDL is a copyright license that authors use for their works when they believe others should have the freedom to share and improve those works. It was designed primarily for use with technical documentation, but has been used for many different kinds of written works — from print biographies to Wikipedia articles. Whereas copyright is normally used to prohibit others from distributing works, the GFDL encourages sharing, with the requirement that any such redistribution must also be under its pro-sharing terms.
But under the proposed amended settlement, Google would generally have permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirements to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers. Authors who wanted to use the GFDL or another free license would be required to designate that license in a Registry — and the Registry would determine which licenses could and could not be chosen.
“As soon as we saw this proposed amendment, we realized that it wasn’t good enough,” said Brett Smith, license compliance engineer at the FSF. “The GFDL and other free licenses, like the Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, already grant Google permission to display and distribute covered works through the Google Book Search database. Google doesn’t need permission to distribute these books under separate terms, and authors shouldn’t have to ask Google to come into compliance.”
The objection states, “The proposed terms… [place] an unfair burden on Rightsholders. Rather than requiring Google to respect the terms of such Free licenses, Rightsholders are responsible for notifying the Registry that the work should be made available under those terms. The FSF sees no justifiable reason to shift these administrative costs to the Rightsholders. Works distributed under Free licenses typically indicate the license terms within the work itself, so authors have already made their choice clearly known. Google should be able to use this information to classify and publish these works appropriately….”
The full text of the objection is available online at http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/google-book-search-objection-2.pdf. The full text of the GFDL is at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html.
No Comments