18 Mar
2005
18 Mar
'05
1:09 a.m.
<http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002782.shtml>
Basically they plan to formalise the ability to require attribution to a
named entity as an alternative to copyright holder. This is what we were
aiming for in at least some of the licensing policies of the openguides
sites.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
18 Mar
18 Mar
10:43 a.m.
This one time, at band camp, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
<http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002782.shtml>
Basically they plan to formalise the ability to require attribution to a
named entity as an alternative to copyright holder. This is what we were
aiming for in at least some of the licensing policies of the openguides
sites.
But how do you relicense existing material?
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
The Tourist Engineer
Because nerds travel too.
http://engineer.openguides.org/
"... Microsoft has a new version out, Windows XP, which according
to everybody is the 'most reliable Windows ever.' To me, this
is like saying that asparagus is 'the most articulate vegetable
ever.'"
- Dave Barry
19 Mar
19 Mar
11:56 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:43:33AM +0000, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
But how do you relicense existing material?
You get the permission of the copyright holders.
In the case if this licence, if it's made sufficiently close to by-sa I
think you could argue that the change was functionally equivalent to the
existing setup.
In fact, we did change the OG licence (from "undefined" to by-sa). The
best we could do was to place a notice on the home page to invite
contributors to contact us if they did not wish their work to be
relicensed. It is somewhat dubious, but we decided it was the best thing
to do under the circumstances, and I'm confident that I've personally
told most of the serious contributors (though who have submitted
copyrightable work).
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
20 Mar
20 Mar
12:08 p.m.
This one time, at band camp, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
In the case if this licence, if it's made
sufficiently close to by-sa I
think you could argue that the change was functionally equivalent to the
existing setup.
It looks, from the discussion, that it's going to just be an optional
tweak on by-sa, which might resolve the problem.
The GPL allows licensees to use the version of the licence on the work
or any later version. by-sa 1.0 doesn't seem to have this, but 2.0 does
seem to have it.
This entails quite a bit of trust in the organisation that writes the
legal stuff, though the licence details seem to force that down a bit.
"under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with
the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons
iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this
License"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
--
Rev Simon Rumble <simon(a)rumble.net>
www.rumble.net
The Tourist Engineer
Because nerds travel too.
http://engineer.openguides.org/
Old ravers never die. They just decide house music isn't
so bad after all.
6655
days inactive
6657
days old
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Dominic Hargreaves -
Rev Simon Rumble