腹篮 脚没父, 搬惫 快府狼 哪腔磐俊辑 概老, 力老 蜡拱 空贰茄促. 弊矾骨肺, 快府绰 烹苞茄 斥狼 力老 坷锹 家胶 脚没狼 10甫 茎矫绰 亮篮 酒捞叼绢 捞菌促绰 巴阑 积阿沁促. 第俊 坷绰 盒幅绰 疙何狼 力老 肚绰 啊厘 唱慧 app" 辆幅绰 穿备牢瘤 ", 弊巴 父甸绢脸促 傈眉 斥 悼救俊 历锐甫 (荤侩磊) 档款 荤侩茄, 啊厘 蜡侩茄 脚没俊 扁檬甫 滴绢 捞瘤 臼绰促. 歹 捞惑狼 家俺 绝捞, 搬铰傈 磊拜磊绰 咯扁俊辑 乐促: (歹 腹篮 巴ˇ)

A

Open source is supposed to be a way of simplifying licensing issues and sharing your software/music/video/other content with the masses — freely and magnanimously. Problem is, what happens when something open source is found to be a (possible) violation of some else’s rights? What happens to its derivatives? Do they just pack up shop and find something else, or are they legally responsible for their actions? In what seems poised to become a landmark case on this issue, we’re about to find out.

A Texan family is now suing Virgin Mobile for using a photo of their daughter, Alison Chang, in an ad campaign – the catch is, it was released by the photographer on Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution license, and that’s where Virgin Mobile got the photo from. The problem is, the girl featured in the photo had no idea her photo was being used – or that it was released under the Creative Commons license.

As the case currently stands, the Changs are suing consumers of open source works and not the original party responsible for the release of the work as an open source material without a proper media consent form.

ˇ