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

Alex Mandel tech_dev at wildintellect.com
Wed Jun 29 18:49:46 PDT 2011

On 06/29/2011 06:19 PM, Simon Cropper wrote:
> 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
> Hi Mandel,
> The legal code makes it clear..
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> Collections are treated separately from Adaptations.
> Also look here...
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#I.E2.80.99m_collecting_a_number_of_different_works_together_into_one_resource._Can_I_include_Creative_Commons-licensed_material.3F
> 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.

I was more suggesting that selective quote's with references does not
affect the end license, which means people can do it all they want no
matter which license we pick.

The FAQ seems to answer my other question, which is to say that someone
can include a verbatim copy of our documents and not have it make their
whole document CC-BY-SA. To me this sounds more like the LGPL than the GPL.

Now the question, is it clear to companies that want to include such
documents that they are indeed welcome to so long as they don't actually
modify them (If they do modify them then CC-BY-SA kicks in as it's an
adaptation/derivative not a collection).

At least that's my understanding of it.


More information about the Osgeolive mailing list