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

Simon Cropper scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au
Tue Jun 28 07:38:41 PDT 2011

On 28/06/11 22:13, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Simon, if my previous email doesn't make sense, it might be easier to
> discuss this over the phone tomorrow.
> On 28/06/11 17:05, Simon Cropper wrote:
>> On 28/06/11 16:20, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> For example, Lets say I'm writing a Design document for a project, or
>>> responding to a Request for Quotation, where the proposed solution makes
>>> use of a number of OSGeo-Live applications. Both documents would likely
>>> require a description of included applications. Also, in both cases, the
>>> document will likely be commercial in confidence due to the commercial
>>> sensitivities of the project.
>>> It would be very nice to include the OSGeo-Live Project Overviews in
>>> these documents. If overviews are licensed as CC-By, then the Design &
>>> Response would both require attribution to be mentioned (hence the
>>> marketing or OSGeo-Live). It would also mean that a solution which makes
>>> use of Open Source would likely look more professional than if an author
>>> needed to recreate the material from scratch, and would also be more
>>> cost effective, which would in turn make Open Source based solutions
>>> more competitive in the market.
>>> If on the other hand, Project Overviews were Share Alike, then they
>>> would not be allowed to be included in these commercial-in-confidence
>>> documents. Hence no marketing.
>> In this instance where you are supplementing a quotation you could
>> include the CC-BY-SA document since you are not creating and
>> distributing 'derivative' works.
>> From...
>> http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences
>> CC BY
>> This licence lets others distribute, remix and build upon a work, even
>> commercially, as long as they credit the original creator/s (and any
>> other nominated parties). This is the most accommodating of the
>> licences in terms of what others can do with the work.
>> CC BY-SA (* by SCC)
>> This licence lets others distribute, remix and build upon the work,
>> even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the original
>> creator/s (and any other nominated parties) and *license any new
>> creations based on the work under the same terms*. All new derivative
>> works will carry the same licence, so will also allow commercial use.
>> In other words, you agree to share your materials with others, if they
>> *will share their new works in return*. This licence is often compared
>> to the free software licences, known as ‘copyleft.’
>> Based on this description, which is how I understand it, SA relates
>> only to derivatives. In fact, the CC website has the following message
>> highlighted in red and marked "important information"
>> "A licence cannot feature both the Share Alike and No Derivative Works
>> options. The Share Alike requirement applies only to derivative works."
>> The last sentence states it all. Unless you intend to modify the
>> Project Overviews or the potential client modify the Project Overviews
>> you can include the document in the proposal.
>> Are there any other reasons?

Hi Cameron,

I understand.

You see the LiveDVD as a resource of Project Overviews and Design 
Documents that geospatial companies tendering for work or designing a 
addition/plug-in to existing software could use to help build a 
submission or design document, respectfully.

The question is whether the contributors to the LiveDVD Project 
Overviews want their work used in that way. I can not comment on this, 
others on this list and existing contributors need to be made aware of 
how you envisage the works could be used and give their own feedback.

Personally if I wrote a Project Overview I would not want my work 
incorporated into a tender document or design document even if my name 
was retained. This could imply, directly or indirectly, I support your 
proposal, methodology, ethics, standard of work, etc; which I may not.

I still believe that CC-BY-SA should be the sole licensing type for 
documentation of any type created for use with the LiveDVD.

I understand what you are saying, but simply don't agree that any 
documentation created by a community group should be modified and 
assimilated into a document that the same community does not access.

Cheers Simon

    Simon Cropper
    Principal Consultant
    Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd
    PO Box 160, Sunshine, VIC
    W: www.botanicusaustralia.com.au

More information about the Osgeolive mailing list