Re: Nupedia Open Content License
A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. In this respect, it is not consistent with open source philosophy to specify what uses the licensor considers fair uses since doing so would have the opposite effect than what is intended. You might think of it like this: although the GNU GPL flips copyright by altering the default rules of copyright to benefit the "public domain," fair use cannot be flipped in the same or similar manner by a license since fair use already grants "rights" to the public. Rod - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Jimmy Wales" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Nupedia Open Content License David Johnson wrote: "You may not charge a fee for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the Content via a network" Why not allow someone to charge for the service? Presumably the server upon which the content is based cost some money to operate. The content itself is still free beer. I agree with this. Furthermore, dropping this provision allows people to provide (e.g.) a better framing of the content, or a better search engine for it, for a fee, without even coming close to breaching the license. You may say that that is not the "sole service of providing access", but I believe an enhanced-services provider would feel safer without this clause. "Attribution Requirement" I have nothing againt attribution requirements personally. But I recall decades during which the BSD license had an attribution requirement which the FSF called "obnoxious". And will there be exceptions for schoolchildren doing homework :-) Actually, I think the attribution requirement is *less* obnoxious for text than for software. Kids, like other scholars, have to cite their sources anyway. "Exceptions are made to this requirement to release modified works free of charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law where applicable" Fair Use is kept deliberately nebulous in law. It would be good if you explicitely listed some example of Fair Use. How much can I quote in a term paper before the license kicks in? Are there any additional privileges for educational use? This clause is legally nugatory anyhow, because fair use is precisely *unlicensed* use; it is a right of the public adverse to the copyright owner's rights. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Quite so. As you know (or should have known :-) ), I hold that an open-source license can only grant away the rights that the copyright owner gets from the applicable copyright law, consequently ... Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. ... I deny this, since open-source licenses may not control use at all. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
John, We are in agreement. My point was simple - - although my explanation was too laconic, sorry about that - - you are far better of by keeping fair use issues out of the license. Rod - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Jimmy Wales" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 12:37 PM Subject: Re: Nupedia Open Content License "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: A point of clarification on fair use. "Fair use" is based on copyright. Quite so. As you know (or should have known :-) ), I hold that an open-source license can only grant away the rights that the copyright owner gets from the applicable copyright law, consequently ... Hence, the license may control uses that would otherwise be deemed fair uses under the default rules of copyright. ... I deny this, since open-source licenses may not control use at all. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less|| http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Nupedia Open Content License
Nupedia Open Content Encyclopedia aims to be a general purpose encyclopedia, a true multi-national effort to generate a high quality, unbiased, and *free* Encyclopedia. I would like to invite people to read and critique the Nupedia Open Content License, which you may read at: http://www.nupedia.com/license.shtml Our goal is to have a license which meets the spirit and letter of the Open Source Definition. We are currently using a hybrid license of the opencontent.org and dmoz.org licenses. As I understand it, many "content" licenses are designed in a non-open fashion, in that that they discriminate against paper publication. You can redistribute freely online, but when you go to print, you have to negotiate a license. The idea seems to be that authors can make money from print versions. Nupedia is envisioned as a resource for everyone in the world. One of my greatest dreams is to see competitive publishers distributing the paper encyclopedia to all the nations of the world for little more than the cost of printing. I have read that something like 1/3 of the population of the world, nearly 2 billion people, do not have access to safe drinking water. Obviously, they don't have computers, either. But I want them to be able to afford a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia. The only restriction on use and reuse that we seek, and I hope that this is consistent with Open Source ideals, is that when people use the content on the web, they are required to provide a hypertext link back to the original project. The idea here is to make the project "viral". When Altavista or Yahoo or someone important like that picks up the content to make their own branded encyclopedia, that's *great*. We want them to do that, and for free. The only thing we ask is that each page derived from our content carry a linkback to us. This system has worked very well for the http://www.dmoz.org/ Open Directory Project. They get a large amount of publicity and new volunteers from links back from the search engines that use their data. I seek any and all input, because I believe that one of the most important determinants of the success of this project is our credibility within the open source movement. Therefore, we want to proceed in a spirit of openness and dialogue with *everyone*. This project is for everyone. --Jimbo
Re: Nupedia Open Content License
On Saturday 28 October 2000 01:43 pm, Jimmy Wales wrote: The only restriction on use and reuse that we seek, and I hope that this is consistent with Open Source ideals, is that when people use the content on the web, they are required to provide a hypertext link back to the original project. The idea here is to make the project "viral". When Altavista or Yahoo or someone important like that picks up the content to make their own branded encyclopedia, that's *great*. We want them to do that, and for free. The only thing we ask is that each page derived from our content carry a linkback to us. Okay, some points: "You may not charge a fee for the sole service of providing access to and/or use of the Content via a network" Why not allow someone to charge for the service? Presumably the server upon which the content is based cost some money to operate. The content itself is still free beer. The problem I have with guaranteeing the free beer status of Nupedia is that there will be derivative works. You would be prohibiting authors from making money off of the "cat" article, even though they only quoted Nupedia in the "czar" article. Bob Young can sell Redhat for $80, but could only sell a CD of Nupedia for around $2. "Attribution Requirement" I have nothing againt attribution requirements personally. But I recall decades during which the BSD license had an attribution requirement which the FSF called "obnoxious". And will there be exceptions for schoolchildren doing homework :-) "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Content or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole" I am still somewhat disatisfied that the GPL didn't elaborate on this, and I wish you would. If volume C used a sentence from Nupedia, then is volume Z under legal control by Bomis Inc? If all volumes shipped together? What if they were on a monthly subscription service? "Exceptions are made to this requirement to release modified works free of charge under this license only in compliance with Fair Use law where applicable" Fair Use is kept deliberately nebulous in law. It would be good if you explicitely listed some example of Fair Use. How much can I quote in a term paper before the license kicks in? Are there any additional privileges for educational use? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
