Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA
Dear IANALs, I am in a dialog about a license for a logo I once envisioned and then some proper designed helped to design but because naive me didn't disclose upfront the terms of the logo release -- got problematic. Now at least we agreed that logo could be released under CC BY SA (share-alike) license but I wondered: if I have a software project which is under more permissive license (MIT or BSD-3) and then includes that logo a) in the code b) in the documentation. Does it obligates share alike (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it would not be available for close-source derivatives? or would be ok as long as logo itself, if modified, is exposed in original form (.ai or .svg) Thanks for your views on this P.S. I would appreciate being CCed in replies -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Research Scientist,Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150225155532.gx7...@onerussian.com
Re: Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Simon McVittie wrote: share alike (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it would not be available for close-source derivatives? The important question is, is the code or documentation legally a derivative work of the logo, or have they just been put alongside each other? (This is really a question for a lawyer - it's a question about copyright law, not about CC licenses.) Thank you Simon -- that was a nice view / thought exercise! -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Research Scientist,Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150225172113.gr7...@onerussian.com
Re: Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA
On 25/02/15 15:55, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Now at least we agreed that logo could be released under CC BY SA (share-alike) license but I wondered: if I have a software project which is under more permissive license (MIT or BSD-3) and then includes that logo a) in the code b) in the documentation. Does it obligates share alike (thus copyleft) licensing of the entire project, i.e. it would not be available for close-source derivatives? The important question is, is the code or documentation legally a derivative work of the logo, or have they just been put alongside each other? (This is really a question for a lawyer - it's a question about copyright law, not about CC licenses.) If the logo is compiled into the executable, I would argue that the executable is a derivative work of both its source code and the logo. If the logo is loaded by name at runtime, such that you could trivially substitute any graphic of the same size, I would argue that it isn't: there is nothing about the logo that was an input to making the executable, other than perhaps its size and format, which are unlikely to be considered a creative choice (and hence not protected by copyright). Similarly, if the documentation loads a separate logo (e.g. in HTML) and would make just as much sense with a different logo design referring to essentially the same thing, it probably isn't a derivative work, but if it integrates the logo into some sort of clever graphic design that it would have been done differently if the logo was different, then it probably is. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54edffc5.20...@debian.org
Re: Does logo under CC BY SA makes entire project SA
Simon pointed out the key question: if it is a derivative work or just an aggregation of two works (code + logo, or logo + text). I don't think it would be considered a derivative but IANAL. Also note that even if the executable was a derivative work of the logo (and thus subject to the CC-BY-SA), the source code is not. You could remove/replace the logo and use the result following just the MIT license. Independently of being loaded at runtime or hardcoded. It's even more clear for the documentation. Suppose you have a pdf with the logo on the first page, and CC-BY text in the rest. I could strip the first page and release the result under CC-BY, even if the full pdf could only be used under CC-BY-SA (which may or may not be the case). IANAL, for legal issues consult with a lawyer, etc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54ee1fe3.4080...@gmail.com
Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
lumin cdlumin...@gmail.com writes: (please CC me if reply, thanks) Done. I'm maintaining a package and encountered some copyright issues, I believe here is the right place to ask for help :-) Yes, this is the place to ask about legal (such as copyright) issues with packages that may prevent them getting into Debian. There are many quotes/paragraphs from famous people on wikiquote.org, […] At first I thought ignoring the license issue is ok, as the content I chose is *definitely* known by most people, Whether the content is known is irrelevant to copyright status. What matters is: Does copyright law restrict what you're trying to do? And what you're wanting to do is redistribute the work in Debian. If the work is covered by copyright, it doesn't matter how well known it is; you (and anyone who also redistributes, such as the Debian Project or its recipients) will be violating copyright in many jurisdictions, unless you have explicit license to do that from all copyright holders. Some works may not be covered by copyright. You'll need to check with a copyright lawyer, but some possibilities: * The work may be several centuries old *and* you are redistributing that centuries-old text. (A translation or some other modification invokes a new copyright in the modified work, and you then need permission from the new copyright holder.) * Copyright law may categorically exclude the work. This is often the case if the work was produced by the USA government, but not always. and, does anyone possesses the copyright of creations of old/ancient leterator ? I think no. How ancient is the literature? You may be safe if it is *all* created before the existence of copyright anywhere, *and* you are not working from a modern modification (such as translation). However, those content were collected, edited, and verified by wikipedia/wikiquotes ... Mechanical transformation – i.e. with no human creative action – is usually deemed not to cause a new copyright to exist. Pasting text into Wikiquote would not, IMO, cause a new copyright. If something creative – such as compilation and selection, or translation – was done, copyright in the result exists with someone specific (probably not Wikimedia). -- \ “… one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was | `\that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful | _o__) termination of their C programs.” —Robert Firth | Ben Finney b...@benfinney.id.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85twy92lf8@benfinney.id.au
Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 17:27 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: If you're cherry-picking, I'd say that it would probably be fine. Copying full pages, probably not. If you tell us what package it is, it might give us a better idea. I'm maintaining fortune-zh, Chinese Data files for fortune, which is a native debian package originally created by a Debian developer. So I'm just cherry-picking some fine sentences into those data files, and some times I copied every sentence on the page of some certain famous people. Wikiquote doesn't own the copyrights, so no. If it were me, I'd use the editing history to try and find the people who added the relevant quotes, and use their names, or if I could not find them, their usernames. Tracing the copyright is ... horror... IMO, whereas the content I picked are all famous words, maybe I can feel free to cherry-pick them? Thank you. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1424932640.5560.7.ca...@gmail.com
Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
Hi debian-legal, (please CC me if reply, thanks) I'm maintaining a package and encountered some copyright issues, I believe here is the right place to ask for help :-) There are many quotes/paragraphs from famous people on wikiquote.org, and I'd like to cherry-pick some of those content (they are distributed under CC-BY SA 3.0) into the package I am maintaining. At first I thought ignoring the license issue is ok, as the content I chose is *definitely* known by most people, and, does anyone possesses the copyright of creations of old/ancient leterator ? I think no. However, those content were collected, edited, and verified by wikipedia/wikiquotes ... I can patiently read https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and specify the CC-BY SA 3.0 licence in file debian/copyright, but what to fill in copyright file? wikiquote.org? Thank you, sincerely. -- Regards, C.D.Luminate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1424928672.3478.20.ca...@gmail.com
Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
There are many quotes/paragraphs from famous people on wikiquote.org, and I'd like to cherry-pick some of those content (they are distributed under CC-BY SA 3.0) into the package I am maintaining. At first I thought ignoring the license issue is ok, as the content I chose is *definitely* known by most people, and, does anyone possesses the copyright of creations of old/ancient leterator ? I think no. However, those content were collected, edited, and verified by wikipedia/wikiquotes ... If you're cherry-picking, I'd say that it would probably be fine. Copying full pages, probably not. If you tell us what package it is, it might give us a better idea. I can patiently read https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and specify the CC-BY SA 3.0 licence in file debian/copyright, but what to fill in copyright file? wikiquote.org? Wikiquote doesn't own the copyrights, so no. If it were me, I'd use the editing history to try and find the people who added the relevant quotes, and use their names, or if I could not find them, their usernames. pgpYzcN78rw6e.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:37:20 + lumin cdlumin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 17:27 +1100, Riley Baird wrote: If you're cherry-picking, I'd say that it would probably be fine. Copying full pages, probably not. If you tell us what package it is, it might give us a better idea. I'm maintaining fortune-zh, Chinese Data files for fortune, which is a native debian package originally created by a Debian developer. So I'm just cherry-picking some fine sentences into those data files, and some times I copied every sentence on the page of some certain famous people. Wikiquote doesn't own the copyrights, so no. If it were me, I'd use the editing history to try and find the people who added the relevant quotes, and use their names, or if I could not find them, their usernames. Tracing the copyright is ... horror... IMO, whereas the content I picked are all famous words, maybe I can feel free to cherry-pick them? You shouldn't need to worry about the CC BY-SA/GPL incompatibility if you keep the CC BY-SA fortunes separate (not necessarily in another package, just another file). As for the copyright holders, I'm not sure what you should put down. Maybe you could put something like Wikiquote contributors? pgpJmFyjr5Iaa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Question about GPL and CC-BY SA 3.0
* Copyright law may categorically exclude the work. This is often the case if the work was produced by the USA government, but not always. Kind of unrelated, but I just thought that I should point out that this is only the case for Americans. The USA government claims copyright on their documents in all other countries, and has actually enforced it in the past. pgp1M1X263yV8.pgp Description: PGP signature
