[Live-demo] Liberal licensing of Project Overviews in LiveDVD, do we want this?

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Wed Jul 13 01:10:38 PDT 2011

On 13/07/11 14:09, Simon Cropper wrote:
> On 13/07/11 11:31, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> On 13/07/11 03:22, Simon Cropper wrote:
>>> On 12/07/11 19:05, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>> Simon,
>>>> I'm ok with a variant on your points 1, 3, and 4.
>>>> Point 2 is likely to stump 90% of developers to the point of
>>>> procrastination, unless we can provide a link to a table noting what
>>>> licenses can be included in CC-By and CC-By-SA.
>>>> Do you know of such a table?
>>> Check out Table 2 in the referenced PDF.
>>> http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~trc/public/publications/jise06/
>>> It is a bit old but could be a basis for expanding on.
>>> CC to CC Comparison are shown here...
>>> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#If_I_use_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work_to_create_a_new_work_.28ie_a_derivative_work_or_adaptation.29.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_use_for_my_new_work.3F 
>> Simon, I'm not clear how to interpret your first PDF reference above. If
>> I understand correctly, all the Open Source Software licenses, and
>> public domain documents, can be incorporated into a CC-By and CC-By-SA
>> licensed documents. GPL, LGPL, MPL can be included into CC-By-SA 
>> documents.
>> Is that your interpretation?
>> If that interpretation is correct, then I expect that the majority of
>> our Project Overview source documentation, if not all of it, would be
>> fine to be included into Project Overviews.
> Cameron,
> Unfortunately this table is a bit deceptive. Initially I took it as a 
> compatibility matrix but this is not the case. The authors are merely 
> stating the various attributes of CC licenses are good indicators of 
> openness and have ranked the FOSS licenses accordingly. All we can say 
> from this table is that most FOSS licenses require attribution, not 
> that they are compatible with CC-BY license (that would be too easy). 
> Sorry but this PDF was probably a red hearing.
> I have conducted extensive searches for alternative resources but have 
> found nothing that would help. Essentially projects need to review the 
> license requirement of their content and see if it is compatible.
> The problem is that a lot of projects have either not specified 
> anything for their documentation (so it falls back to 'all right 
> reserved') or their documentation appears to be, in-part, caught up in 
> the software license (e.g. GPL or MIT; although this appears only to 
> apply when the content is distributed with the software).
> I have posted a thread on the Creative Commons mail list to see if 
> anyone is aware of such a compatibility matrix for open content 
> licenses. I will post back if I get some extra detail.
> In the interim if people are able to specify the license that the 
> original work was released, we can make an educated guess based on the 
> deed whether there would be an issue. I am unable to do this for you 
> or for myself because most people have neglected to specify where they 
> obtained the material. The preliminary review of the websites and 
> primary documentation sources that were originally suggested as being 
> the primary source material for project overviews, identified more 
> problems than helped.
> I presume that in this sector there would only be a small number of 
> open content licences to compare, so we should reach a watershed 
> pretty quickly and once a project identifies the license of the source 
> material you would be able to check against our draft compatibility 
> matrix.
> So in short...
> 1. get projects to identify document sources and the license, if any, 
> that they were released under; and
> 2. We/I can look at the deeds to the licenses to see if derivatives 
> can be created from this work AND they can be re-licensed as CC-BY.
> 3. We/I can create a matrix similar to that used in the  CC to CC 
> Comparison table referenced above.

Simon, thanks for all this research you are doing. I'd like to wait to 
see where we get to with this research before going back to the communities.

I don't want to go and ask anything extra of communities until we 
(OSGeo-Live) have a clear understanding about what we are asking for and 
what our complete plan is. Once we have our house in order, we will be 
in a better position to ask others to support us.

Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Director
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source

More information about the Osgeolive mailing list