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

Simon Cropper scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au
Wed Jun 29 18:19:52 PDT 2011

On 30/06/11 10:40, Alex Mandel wrote:
> On 06/29/2011 05:30 PM, Simon Cropper wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>> Cameron has just posted the new licensing details for the LiveDVD.
>> I presume if you actually opened my post that you may be concerned with
>> how Project Overviews may be used.
>> If you have any opinions on this matter PLEASE speak up -- don't just
>> sit in the background as *Cameron will take the lack of any responses as
>> an implicit YES to his proposal*.
>> Personally I have a problem with Project Overviews, or any technical
>> documentation for that matter, being locked up in
>> Commercial-in-Confidence derivatives. I think Project Overviews, which
>> can be legitimately be included 'as is' in a proposal or design
>> document, shouldn't need to be reworked. To me the reworked document,
>> which needs to include your name as original author, implies some sort
>> of collaboration has occurred when none has occurred. Yes, reworked
>> documents do look better but contribute nothing the the broader
>> CC/FOSS/OSGeo community.
>> But this is my opinion. If you have one - for or against - *especially
>> those people that have authored the Project Overviews*, SPEAK UP!
> The thing I haven't been able to quite figure out is if CC-BY-SA behaves
> more like LGPL or GPL. Meaning if you just include a verbatim copy of a
> Quickstart in a bigger document but don't actually modify it, is that
> considered a derivative work? I think we need someone from CC to clarify
> derivative works vs collections vs just direct quotation.
> Thanks,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Live-demo mailing list
> Live-demo at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc

Hi Mandel,

The legal code makes it clear..

Collections are treated separately from Adaptations.

Also look here...

This FAQ directly relates to the use of CC-BY-SA in Collections.

In regards to quoting and referencing standard industry protocol and 
local copyright laws come into play. If you "quote" the whole document 
why not just include it as an appendix.

The question is "would you care if your work was used this way?" if not 
CC-BY is OK. If yes, CC-BY-SA is the more appropriate license.

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