[OSGeo-Edu] First OSGeo edu virtual meeting - IRC Chat and proposed date/time

P Kishor punk.kish at gmail.com
Sun Jul 25 21:27:05 EDT 2010

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Simon Cropper
<scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> On Monday 26 July 2010 10:56:20 you wrote:
>> Yes. For the above reason, you should consider putting your
>> contributions under a CC0 (CC-Zero) Waiver, a protocol suited for
>> material that might have copyrightable elements but that you might
>> want to put in public domain.
> Puneet,
> Thanks for your reply regarding licensing.
> Unfortunately you misunderstand my position. The impediment is not knowing how
> to relinquish your rights but in how to retain them yet allow others access to
> your material.
> That is, people don't release material because once 'out there' their ideas,
> methods and works are able to be used in anyway conceivable. For a lot of
> people, this loss of control, especially of the quality and integrity of
> derived works, is problematic.
> For example. I am a stickler for detail. I spend a lot of time researching and
> preparing my tutorials before I release them. If I release these documents
> under GPL or CC (+derivatives) then others can take and embellish my work.
> Yes, I am still acknowledged in the derived works BUT does the other person
> take as much care in the translation and/or expansion of the work. My name is
> now associated with a poorer quality product created by someone I may not wish
> to use the work or in the way I did not want it to be used.
> The same with potential commercial derivatives. Say my tutorials are really
> liked and a commercial company then uses them to generate income. In my mind
> this is wrong. If I have released the data to the public as a free resource
> then others should not be able to sell it or access to it -- it should remain
> freely accessible.

No, I don't misunderstand your position.

If you want to keep control over how your work should be used, then
use CC-ND-NC license as you are already doing. Of course, doing so
might turn off some folks from using your work. I am pretty sure you
alluded to that in your original post. In my personal view, CC-ND-NC
is not free. It restricts others from making derived works from my
work, and it restricts them from making money off of it. If that is
what you want, then CC-ND-NC is the right license for your work.

On the other hand, if you want maximum use of your work, then use CC0
or CC-BY 3.0. In my view, in that case your work is really free, but
you do give up your right to enforce how your work should be used.

You can't really make it "free" and "restrict" it at the same time.
Since everyone's definition of free and restricted varies
substantially, CC0/PD/CC-BY 3.0 try to take the confusion away.

> --
> Cheers Simon
>        Simon Cropper
>        Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd
>        PO Box 160 Sunshine 3020
>        P: 03 9311 5822. M: 041 830 3437
>        W: http://www.botanicusaustralia.com.au

Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science

More information about the Edu_discuss mailing list