[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
On 19/06/2011 1:24 PM, Hamish wrote: * I think that the OSGeo-Live project should mandate that Project Overviews should be available to be used under a CC-BY (without the viral "Share Alike"). please don't conflate my gift to humanity with a computer virus, or some autoimmune disease which parasites on the rest, often destroying the host; thanks. it's a nasty turn of phrase which was quite deliberately invented to skew an otherwise meaningful discussion. Copyleft does not infect you; you consciously decide to buy it, or not. also while in the sensitive words dept., you do not "mandate" a team of volunteers if you hope for them to stick around for any period of time. Hamish, I apologise for my poor choice of words. Let me rephrase as: In order for us to ensure that OSGeo-Live documentation can be collectively incorporated into downstream documents, I suggest that we set a minimum level of openness for the documents. This may be "CC-BY" - where downstream documents need to attribute the OSGeo-Live source documents, or "CC-BY-SA" where downstream documents will be required to also be shared under the same CC license. I invite you to have a look at some of the existing commercial/ consulting firm's training material, who were happy to give back. The key I think is getting a reputation as the go-to company for training on some particular area, not just being in sole control of some quickly outdated PDF. http://www.gdf-hannover.de/media.php?lg=en http://www.gdf-hannover.de/leistungen.php?id=3&lg=en I'm aware that some osgeo businesses release their documentation, and some don't. Now is the time to speak up if you have ideas on how OSGeo-Live documentation could be used, and as such which license we should select. -- 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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
On Jun 19, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Charlie Schweik wrote: > On 6/18/2011 7:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: >> Are education institutions allowed to license material they create under CC >> BY-SA? > I don't know if there is a "yes" or "no" answer to this or to what degree > this has been addressed in academic institutions. We have one colleague, > Puneet Kishor, who is closely connected to Creative Commons. Puneet, do you > have any idea about this? > The answer would likely vary from institution to institution. Going by UW-Madison where I work, copyright in institutional stuff (for example, the UW web site [http://www.wisc.edu]) are held by the Regents of the University. Every page on the web site is footnoted with "© 2010 Board of Regents - University of Wisconsin System. All Rights Reserved." However, employees are certainly allowed to benefit from their own creations; see below for relevant excerpt from [http://www.wisconsin.edu/gc-off/deskbook/copyrgt.htm]. Ownership of Employee-Created Instructional Materials Under the UW System Policy on Ownership of Copyrightable Instructional Materials (GAPP 27), the employee usually owns all rights in his or her creations. For instance, a professor who creates a scholarly article in the course of research at a UW System institution would ordinarily own the copyright in it. The institution may have an interest, however, if it contributed substantial institutional resources in the creation of the work. "Substantial" resources could include providing the creator with paid release time from his or her job, or allowing the employee exceptional access to specialized computer resources to create the work. In practice, when an author uses institutional resources to create a protected work, it is best to agree with the institution beforehand about ownership and control of the work. GAPP 27 includes a sample agreement to allocate rights and interests in copyrighted works between the institution and the employee author. In addition, if a work is produced with extramural support, such as federal funding or corporate sponsorship, the sponsor may have rights in the work. These rights need to be factored into any agreement allocating rights between the copyright owner and the institution. It is evident from above that the matter is not cut and dried. It would depend on agreement with the employer (work-for-hire clause), stipulations from the funding agency (federal vs. private funders), etc. Instructors hold copyright in the instructional material they create, researchers hold copyright in the articles and books they write, and inventors are able to hold patents and benefit from them. UW has specific policies regarding patenting [http://www.warf.org/inventors/index.jsp?cid=14]. Please note that under university policy and certain federal statutes, all inventions made by UW-Madison faculty, staff and students must be disclosed to WARF regardless of the monies (federal, private, etc.) that funded the research leading to the invention. Once WARF processes a new disclosure, the UW-Madison Graduate School will perform an equity review to determine who has ownership rights to the invention. If the Graduate School determines that federal funds did not contribute to the invention (and the inventor has not assigned intellectual property rights to an outside entity, such as a company), the inventor may then choose whether or not to work with WARF in patenting and licensing the invention. In fact, even students hold copyright in their theses and dissertations [http://www.grad.wisc.edu/education/completedegree/pguide.html#18]. Copyright Page (optional) [ top ] If you would like, prepare a copyright page conforming to the sample in the samples section. You may view a sample copyright page at http://www.grad.wisc.edu/education/completedegree/copyright.pdf. Center the text in the bottom third of the page within the dissertation margins. Do not number the copyright page. Registration of copyright You are automatically protected by copyright law, and you do not have to pay in order to retain copyright. There is an additional fee of $65.00 for registering your copyright, which is a public record, and is payable at the Bursar's office along with the dissertation microfilming and binding fee of $90.00. If you choose to pay this additional fee, please sign the separate ProQuest registration of copyright page. If you submit that page, P
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
On 6/18/2011 7:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: Are education institutions allowed to license material they create under CC BY-SA? I don't know if there is a "yes" or "no" answer to this or to what degree this has been addressed in academic institutions. We have one colleague, Puneet Kishor, who is closely connected to Creative Commons. Puneet, do you have any idea about this? I did take a look at MIT's Open Courseware site and the homepage says everything is "CC BY" licensed. But there are some courses that are "CC BY-SA" that I found. Also, Carnegie Mellon's Open Learning Initiative appears to be using CC BY-SA. See http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/index.php. So I think some educational institutions "are allowed" to -- but I don't know how prevalent it is. I think for most campuses this is still a very new space. Cheers Charlie Schweik <>___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, we have a stub about licenses for educational material in our Wiki, feel free to update it to reflect our current understanding of the issue. http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Licenses_for_Education_Material Best regards, Arnulf Hamish wrote: >> * I think that the OSGeo-Live project should mandate that >> Project Overviews should be available to be used under a >> CC-BY (without the viral "Share Alike"). > > please don't conflate my gift to humanity with a computer virus, > or some autoimmune disease which parasites on the rest, often > destroying the host; thanks. > > it's a nasty turn of phrase which was quite deliberately > invented to skew an otherwise meaningful discussion. > > Copyleft does not infect you; you consciously decide to buy it, > or not. > > > > > also while in the sensitive words dept., you do not "mandate" > a team of volunteers if you hope for them to stick around for any > period of time. > >> However, there is significant cost involved in creating >> training material, and training is one way OSGeo businesses >> make money. Is it ok for OSGeo businesses to incorporate >> quickstarts into their much greater training material, but >> not give the training material back? > > I invite you to have a look at some of the existing commercial/ > consulting firm's training material, who were happy to give back. > The key I think is getting a reputation as the go-to company for > training on some particular area, not just being in sole control > of some quickly outdated PDF. > http://www.gdf-hannover.de/media.php?lg=en > http://www.gdf-hannover.de/leistungen.php?id=3&lg=en > > > best, > Hamish > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss - -- Exploring Space, Time and Mind http://arnulf.us -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAk39+n8ACgkQXmFKW+BJ1b3PigCdEeBEsLFRHrTaxhUsSs8HA2ir 6XAAnj5J9glXN6LqDz7B0yt7wyvcGcxQ =h2S+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
> * I think that the OSGeo-Live project should mandate that > Project Overviews should be available to be used under a > CC-BY (without the viral "Share Alike"). please don't conflate my gift to humanity with a computer virus, or some autoimmune disease which parasites on the rest, often destroying the host; thanks. it's a nasty turn of phrase which was quite deliberately invented to skew an otherwise meaningful discussion. Copyleft does not infect you; you consciously decide to buy it, or not. also while in the sensitive words dept., you do not "mandate" a team of volunteers if you hope for them to stick around for any period of time. > However, there is significant cost involved in creating > training material, and training is one way OSGeo businesses > make money. Is it ok for OSGeo businesses to incorporate > quickstarts into their much greater training material, but > not give the training material back? I invite you to have a look at some of the existing commercial/ consulting firm's training material, who were happy to give back. The key I think is getting a reputation as the go-to company for training on some particular area, not just being in sole control of some quickly outdated PDF. http://www.gdf-hannover.de/media.php?lg=en http://www.gdf-hannover.de/leistungen.php?id=3&lg=en best, Hamish ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: [Live-demo] Impacts of OSGeo-Live document license selection on OSGeo
I'm expanding this discussion on OSGeo-Live documentation license selection, as our decision will have a significant knock on effect to the rest of OSGeo, and OSGeo business models, and I'd like to give everyone the chance to air the opinions. Please continue discussion on the OSGeo-Discuss list. We are wishing to determine which Creative Commons license we recommend for OSGeo-Live Project Overviews and Quickstarts. [1] Either: Attribution (CC BY), or Attribution Share Alike (CC BY-SA) By selecting Share-Alike clause in the Creative Commons license, we force all derivative documents to also be released as Creative Commons. In order to decide whether this is desirable, lets guess where people would likely wish to include OSGeo-Live docs. For Project Overviews: 1. Case Studies 2. Comparisons of Software (both Open Source and Proprietary) 3. The numerous types of documentation created for projects which incorporate Open Source: RFQ responses, Designs, Maintainer Guides, etc. These docs will often be commercial in confidence. 4. News articles about Open Source, published in newspapers or magazines with their own copyright policy. 5. OSGeo Web Site 6. Project Web Sites, which possibly have a permissive documentation policy. 7. Training Material 8. Basically, any material which could potentially be talking about Open Source Geospatial Software. For Project Quickstarts: I see the Quickstarts as likely being the seed for a comprehensive OSGeo training resource, including development of lecture notes, workshop notes, tutorials, books "How to do XXX with Open Source application YYY". My recommendation: * I think that the OSGeo-Live project should mandate that Project Overviews should be available to be used under a CC-BY (without the viral "Share Alike"). There will be marketing advantage gained by allowing our overviews to be included in the types of documents above, and that many of these documents (such as newspapers or magazine articles) will not change a publishing policy to Creative Commons. * The license policy for Quickstarts is one I'd like to hear debate about. Should the minimum requirement for license be CC BY, or CC BY-SA? (Projects will always be able to license under a more permissive license if they choose). There would be significant collective value gained if education institutions used and extended our Quickstarts, by building open training material on top of it. However, there is significant cost involved in creating training material, and training is one way OSGeo businesses make money. Is it ok for OSGeo businesses to incorporate quickstarts into their much greater training material, but not give the training material back? Are education institutions allowed to license material they create under CC BY-SA? [1] http://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html On 18/06/11 12:09, Hamish wrote: Johan: Definitely don't make it non-commercial. This is a vague term that is hard to define. +1. This is often quite ambiguous at research universities, where grad students' stipends are funded by their supervisor's research contracts. This is what I added to grass_quickstart.rst,.. just before the 4.5 release: :License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) For works entirely composed by myself, ShareAlike are my terms of contribution. I am willing to compromise on the SA for overviews pages, as they contain minimal creative content, and are more likely to be the ones reused in the reports mentioned by Cameron. Beware of the cases where content is sourced from upstream! Also we must be explicit re. the screenshots on the help pages, often they are sourced from upstream and not under the same license as the ReST docs. Sure, diff't licenses are harder to clearly document, but anyone including content from a 3rd party needs to properly check their sources (ie the .rst files), there are no two ways around that. It should not be too hard to grep the .rst file and automatically add a custom line of text at the bottom of the page stating the per-page terms, if any. best, Hamish ___ Live-demo mailing list live-d...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/live-demo http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Live_GIS_Disc -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Director 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 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
