[Live-demo] Re: LiveDVD Copyright Ambiguity

[Cameron Shorter]

Simon,
Thank you for raising this issue, it is very important and hasn't had 
much air time on the OSGeo-Live project.
Once we have finished the final throws of the 4.5 release (in a few 
hours) and had time to recoup, we should revisit this. Please remind us 
again in a few weeks, if the topic isn't discussed immediately.

On 17/03/2011 12:27 PM, Simon Cropper wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like ask the question about copyright associated with the Live
> DVD produced by LisaSoft and OSGeo.
>
> I have been looking over the website and note that the copyright is
> attributed to LisaSoft and/or OSGeo.
>
> If you work you way down to the html versions of the quickstart guides
> they are also copyrighted to OSGeo. If you work your way back to the RST
> source files for these pages you can see that the authors released their
> work under a 'Creative Commons' license.
>
> Take the MapGuide as an example...
>
>
> https://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/livedvd/gisvm/trunk/doc/en/quickstart/mapguide_quickstart.rst
>
>         http://live.osgeo.org/quickstart/mapguide_quickstart.html
>
> Shouldn't the website be 'Creative Commons', or at least the quickstart
> section? At least this is my understanding of the use of CC works.
>
> Also, I note that most authors of rst files simple inserted 'Creative
> Commons' under the license section. If you go to the CC site there is no
> license specifically called "Creative Commons'.
>
>         http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>
> The license relevant to this work should be unambiguous and works should
> point to the specific deed relevant to the license that they are
> releasing the work under. 'Creative Commons' is not specific enough.
>
> I know this is a old topic that has been debated before but I would have
> thought that these issues would have been clarified by now - especially
> as the DVD is in its 4th rebirth.
>
> For debate, I have included the following clause extracted from the FAQ
> webpage on the Creative Commons Site
>
>          http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
>
> Note I have inserted ### comments ### throughout...
>
> You will notice that none of the ways proposed here to 'properly
> attribute a Creative Commons licensed work' have been met.
>
> As a group OSGeo should be aspiring to ensure any new works *at least*
> have unambiguous licensing both for the original works and the Live DVD.
>
> *** start quote ***
>
> How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?
>
> All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original
> author(s) ### not done in final product ###. If the copyright holder has
> not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean
> that you do not have to give attribution. It simply means that you will
> have to give attribution to the best of your ability with the
> information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things:
>
>       * If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by
> the copyright holder, you must leave those notices intact, or reproduce
> them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which you are
> re-publishing the work ### authorship and license placed in RST files
> not maintained in HTML ###
>
>       * Cite the author's name, screen name, user identification, etc. If
> you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the
> person's profile page, if such a page exists ### not done ###
>
>       * Cite the work's title or name, if such a thing exists. If you are
> publishing on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title
> directly to the original work ### not done, list of contributors not
> linked back to contributions, also contributors section hidden under
> sponsorships page ###
>
>       * Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If you are
> publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to
> the license on the CC website. ### not done, in fact I could not find
> any mention of CC on the LiveDVD webpage ###
>
>       * If you are making a derivative work or adaptation, in addition to
> the above, you need to identify that your work is a derivative work
> i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by
> [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”
> ### not done ###
>
> In the case where a copyright holder does choose to specify the manner
> of attribution, in addition to the requirement of leaving intact
> existing copyright notices, they are only able to require certain
> things. Namely:
>
>       * They may require that you attribute the work to a certain name,
> pseudonym or even an organization of some sort. ### not done ###
>
>       * They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web
> address) for the work. ### not done ###
>
> If you are interested to see what an actual license ("legalcode") has to
> say about attribution, you can use the CC Attribution 3.0 Unported
> license as an example. Please note that this is only an example, and you
> should always read the appropriate section of the specific license in
> question ... usually, but perhaps not always, section 4(b) or 4(c):
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
>
> *** end quote ***
>


-- 
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
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
http://www.lisasoft.com