Fwd: Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo

Cameron Shorter cameron.shorter at gmail.com
Mon Jun 27 16:41:33 PDT 2011

On 27/06/11 15:51, Simon Cropper wrote:
> *** POINT 2 ***
> <snip>
> I do not understand why [requiring derivatives to release under 
> CC-BY-SA] would be of concern. In my mind it only purpose is to stop 
> derivatives becoming closed documents -- if I release my original 
> document to the world free of charge and derivatives should also be 
> made available to the world free of charge, not to be used by a 
> corporation for one of their commercial products where only paying 
> customers can gain access to their derivatives. Corporations can 
> easily get around 'this perceived problem' by releasing the modified 
> documentation back to the public as well as including them in their 
> official release documentation.

My concern is to do with the types of derivative documents. The first 
case, a more comprehensive tutorial which is based on a quickstart is 
probably the sort of derivative you are thinking about. I agree that it 
would be desirable for such derivatives to be open, which can be 
achieved by a CC-By-SA.

However, in cases where someone was considering including a Project 
Overview into a restrictive licensed work, the author will likely decide 
to rewrite equivalent material to the Project Overview, rather than 
re-licensing their work under a CC-By-SA, and we thus loose the 
marketing value of these works attributing OSGeo-Live authors.

I see Project Overviews like a GNU Library, and as such we should aim 
for a LGPL license for the same reason GNU use the LGPL. People can 
fairly easily source the equivalent material for Project Overviews from 
websites and incorporate into their presentations, case studies, 
software comparisons, responses to tenders, etc, etc.
However, it is preferable that they use our quality OSGeo-Live 
documentation, and provide attribution back to OSGeo-Live and OSGeo-Live 
authors, and create a much greater marketing reach for OSGeo-Live.

> *** POINT 3 ***
> Realistically, document ownership belongs to each author. Therefore, 
> authors should be allowed to choose a license they can use in their 
> jurisdiction, as it will be the author that takes action in their own 
> jurisdiction, if a breach of copyright is detected.
> Choosing a CC-BY-SA unported license is one thing but this document 
> does not always hold up in court due to variation in copyright laws 
> throughout the world. Licensing should be specific to the country that 
> the main author resides unless an unported licence does not exist. 
> Moving from a CC-BY-SA for one country to another is allowed under the 
> legal code and does not pose any major problem, except maybe a 
> logistic one for the Live DVD team.

Our aim should be to ensure that we can license all Project Overviews 
under a CC-By, and all Quickstarts under a CC-By-SA.

If someone wishes provide a dual license (with additional license to 
cover a specific country), or provide a less restrictive "Public Domain" 
license, then that should be ok.

> *** POINT 4 ***
> Copyright details should be retained with the actual 'work' (i.e. 
> Project Overview or Quickstart).
> As each document is in itself a defined document (rather than a book 
> or technical document) and can be pilfered and reused in other areas 
> as a distinct document, copyright details should be provided with each 
> document regardless of the format it is released (RST file or HTML file).
> At present, on the Live DVD  documentation, authorship and licensing 
> is ambiguous. Where some people have put license details in the RST 
> file this has not been carried across to the HTML version. In fact, 
> the HTML website looks as if it has been created solely by LisaSoft 
> and OSGeo -- Foundation look at the bottom of EVER page -- it stated 
> "© OSGeo Foundation and LISAsoft 2011" with no reference to the author 
> or the licence the work is released. To me, two lines at the top of 
> the page is, at minimum, essential -- one stating the author(s) and 
> another the licence the work is released under. In addition, it is 
> good practice to ensure all other works (images, data, etc) are 
> appropriately cited and copyright details provided.
> One solution is to include a metadata section at the end of each 
> document like I have on my website 
> (http://www.fossworkflowguides.com). Another solution is to include 
> captions with pictures outlining the origin of works used, etc (e.g. 
> This image has been reproduced with permission from the Commonwealth 
> of Australia).

Yes, I think you have a valid argument here. I think it is also 
important to keep each document very concise and easy to read.

I suggest we provide small print at the bottom of each page with 
something like "Copyright OSGeo-Live authors, CC-By-SA" and a link to a 
copyright page. The copyright page can be quite verbose. In particular, 
it should list all documents, and the document authors, and the license 
of each document.

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