Re: BSD Documentation License?
Ted Walther wrote: [snip] (The 2/3-term BSD license meant to do basically the same, but it used more words to do the same. The old 4-term BSD license included some terms to make University of California benefit from advertising, if there was going to be any.) I have been generating midi, ogg, pdf, and mp3 files of some old, out-of-copyright music. I have been releasing them and the source that generates them under the Creative Commons license. Do you recommend the 3 term BSD license for this particular use instead? Or would the 2 term one be better? The BSD license is about using copyright, for which I believe you have no claim in the media files you mention.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
(The 2/3-term BSD license meant to do basically the same, but it used more words to do the same. The old 4-term BSD license included some terms to make University of California benefit from advertising, if there was going to be any.) I have been generating midi, ogg, pdf, and mp3 files of some old, out-of-copyright music. I have been releasing them and the source that generates them under the Creative Commons license. Do you recommend the 3 term BSD license for this particular use instead? Or would the 2 term one be better? You can't do that. You added nothing of value, so you don't deserve copyright, since your conversions do not count as being substantial. Conversions of files remain under their existing rights, which means, they are free, since the copyright expired. Adding a copyright to them is a lie.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
There were no files. I made up my own music file format. I took some hundred year old sheet music, and based on how I interpet it, I composed my particular music files. From my music files, I automatically generate PDF sheet music, midi, ogg, and mp3. The PDF sheet music is not identical to the original sheet music. The music itself is out of copyright. But in the legal field, there are cases that have established that copyright on public domain material can apply to things like page numbers. The classic example if the Findlaw company. They index publicly available court rulings. The court rulings themselves cannot be copyrighted, as they are public property. But when a competitor copied Findlaws product, they got smacked for copyright violation. The court found that the content was copyright-free, but the page numbers were added by Findlaw, and constituted their copyrighted property. This is like someone copyrighting Strong's numbers, which are a sort of index to the Bible. My source for this information is Amicus Curia, a pro se lawyer and paralegal operating in the state of Washington. He has had running battles with Findlaw, who periodically clobber their own legal software to force you to buy upgrades. Their product is the best in the field, so all lawyers end up using it, fueling a monopoly in the field of legal research. In todays music industry, performers claim copyright when they record themselves playing a piece of music, even if the music itself is out of copyright. I may not be a musician, but it took a certain amount of skill to read the music, and enter it into the computer, and then make the computer play it. That is, it took skill and effort to create a performance. As for substantial changes to the source; I separated tenor, soprano, alta, and bass parts so they could all be listened to separately. There was no such separation in the original sheet music. This sort of change is at least on par with adding page numbers and an index. You call that bullshit? Ok. I won't disagree. But there is a whole legal industry out there with their own peculiar ideas. I'm a believer in freedom. I don't want to restrict anyone from using my newly formatted renditions of old, out of copyright music. I want to let people know that I renounce any copyright claims to the material on the website. So the options are: 1) public domain 2) creative commons license 3) BSD license If I do not state this renunciation of copyright somehow, people, especially legal people, may assume some sort of copyright exists. What do you recommend? Ted On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:57:32AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: (The 2/3-term BSD license meant to do basically the same, but it used more words to do the same. The old 4-term BSD license included some terms to make University of California benefit from advertising, if there was going to be any.) I have been generating midi, ogg, pdf, and mp3 files of some old, out-of-copyright music. I have been releasing them and the source that generates them under the Creative Commons license. Do you recommend the 3 term BSD license for this particular use instead? Or would the 2 term one be better? You can't do that. You added nothing of value, so you don't deserve copyright, since your conversions do not count as being substantial. Conversions of files remain under their existing rights, which means, they are free, since the copyright expired. Adding a copyright to them is a lie. -- There's a party in your skull. And you're invited! Name:Ted Walther Phone: 604-435-5787 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: tederific Address: 3422 Euclid Ave basement, Vancouver, BC V5R4G4 (Canada)
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Ted Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There were no files. I made up my own music file format. I took some hundred year old sheet music, and based on how I interpet it, I composed my particular music files. From my music files, I automatically generate PDF sheet music, midi, ogg, and mp3. The PDF sheet music is not identical to the original sheet music. Printed sheet music of public domain content is indeed copyrightable. The copyright does not apply to the content, but to the presentation. This makes sense, because (at least with classical music) a lot of effort goes into transcribing, researching the original manuscripts, adding performance hints and typesetting [1]. I think that the above is also valid if you transcribe from old sheet music instead of the original manuscripts, so I'd say that you could copyright the PDF. Since the midi, ogg and mp3 files reflect the pure content without any human interpretation, I doubt that they are copyrightable. I would publish the PDF with a preface, citing the original sources and outlining the changes that were made. This is common practice. If you then choose the standard copyright, people will still be able to make their own compilations from your work. If you want to encourage direct reuse, why not put the PDF into the public domain and ask people to credit you if they make modifications? I wouldn't use any of the documentation licenses. Those licenses are for works where you are the original creator, not for transcriptions. Stefan Krah [1] Unfortunately, the art of typesetting is on a steady decline, but that is another topic.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:26:09AM -0700, Ted Walther wrote: There were no files. I made up my own music file format. I took some hundred year old sheet music, and based on how I interpet it, I composed my particular music files. From my music files, I automatically generate PDF sheet music, midi, ogg, and mp3. The PDF sheet music is not identical to the original sheet music. Then as I understand it your interpretation is correct: the original works are in the public domain, and your performance and derived works are copyright by you. I'm a believer in freedom. I don't want to restrict anyone from using my newly formatted renditions of old, out of copyright music. I want to let people know that I renounce any copyright claims to the material on the website. So the options are: 1) public domain 2) creative commons license 3) BSD license If I do not state this renunciation of copyright somehow, people, especially legal people, may assume some sort of copyright exists. If you truly wish to relinquish ALL rights then public domain is exactly that. This is obviously the most free. If additionally you wish to retain attribution only then /usr/src/share/misc/license.template is a great choice. This is probably the most free except for public domain. If it bothers you if Microsoft uses your performance in a Vista ad then you must pick something else. But now you are in a sticky place where you want to share except when you don't. The available licenses are tricky legalese, and finding one to match your motives is difficult and the license may have consequences you don't anticipate. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: BSD Documentation License?
[snip] (The 2/3-term BSD license meant to do basically the same, but it used more words to do the same. The old 4-term BSD license included some terms to make University of California benefit from advertising, if there was going to be any.) I have been generating midi, ogg, pdf, and mp3 files of some old, out-of-copyright music. I have been releasing them and the source that generates them under the Creative Commons license. Do you recommend the 3 term BSD license for this particular use instead? Or would the 2 term one be better? [snip] Please avoid using that creativecommons bullshit for anything -- it it tries to hide the fundamentals and simplicity of basic copyright law behind the massive complexity of US-centric contract law and the various terminology normally tied to tit for tat. In the end, creativecommons licenses will only ever truly benefit one group of people on this planet: The lawyers. [snip] And that is exactly what creativecommons tries to do. 2300 words to say you must say I wrote it? There is only one reason it could take 2300 words: The goal is to deceive. Amen brother. Tell it like it is. Ted -- There's a party in your skull. And you're invited! Name:Ted Walther Phone: 604-435-5787 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: tederific Address: 3422 Euclid Ave basement, Vancouver, BC V5R4G4 (Canada)
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Theo de Raadt wrote: Note even just using the word license creates confusion Thanks for the reminder. IIRC the correct term is 'copyright notice' In OpenBSD we use an ISC-style copyright text since it does what is needed. ... Yes, Daniel and William pointed it out. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup I missed it because it was not found in whatis.db with apropos nor elsewhere I looked. I'm looking for short notice, ideally one line notice (pref short URL), that matches (or is) OpenBSD's ISC-variant that I can use for written works. The default in the Berne convention countries is to restrict distribution, unless specified otherwise. I want to specify otherwise. Regards -Lars
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On 3/21/08, Lars Noodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? Every man page has its license included in the source.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Hi, why not just hack the ISC licence? Copyright (c) CCYY, your name [EMAIL PROTECTED] Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Lars Noodin wrote: If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? I wasn't able to spot anything in either the OpenBSD FAQ or the Misc mailing list archive. Regards, -Lars I'm not entirely sure what you are asking...if you are asking what the license is for a PARTICULAR bit of existing documentation, the source file is your clue. It's not only a clue, of course, it's the law. The man pages tend to follow the application they are documenting, pretty much out of necessity. You don't want to have the official documentation having different distribution rules than the app. The OpenBSD website, for the most part, has no license, which means it falls under standard copyright law. Parts of the FAQ are under a BSD-style license. For stuff you publish on other people's site, you follow their rules or guidelines. This is actually pretty critical, as your docs will go out of date quickly, and if history is an indicator, you will probably not bother to update it, so someone else will need to step in and either delete it or update it (or at least, modify it to say, this is great historical information about this five year old problem, the writing is sublime, but completely pointless now.) For stuff you write and publish yourself? Why are you asking us? Decide what you want done with it, and act accordingly! Why should someone else decide how YOU license YOUR work?? If you really want others to tell you how to distribute your work, may I suggest the GNUbies... Anyway, cheap shots aside, for many, many uses, you should probably just stick with standard copyright law. If you want something other than that, ask yourself why, what you hope to accomplish, and how you and others will benefit from a license. Think long and hard about it. Are you going to be upset if someone takes your BSD'd webpages, prints them on their laser printer, binds them in book form and sells 'em for $40/ea, and ends up on the New York Times Best Seller List without forwarding a dime to you? If not, don't BSD-license your text. It happened to us, a lot of people were all bent out of shape over it, but Joel and I had already discussed that probability and we were ok with it, both as a hypothetical and after it actually happened. How do you or the world benefit from having your writing in slightly different form at 700 different sites around the Web? I don't have a good suggestion, really, other than be careful. I admit that third-party documentation for free software sounds like it should be free at first thought, but /practically/, I don't see the benefit to anyone. When we BSD'd parts of the FAQ, we had what we (Joel and I...I think it is should be pointed out that Theo thought we were a bit nuts) thought was good reason, and we have no regrets about doing it. BUT it isn't for everyone or everything. I've not even looked too closely at free documentation licenses. I just don't know what I want them to say in general. Usually, I prefer that what I write either stay under regular copyright law, so I can determine how it is distributed, modified, etc. or should be spread as widely as possible with nothing more than attribution, and much of what I write would probably be best for me if spread without attribution or buried and never seen again :). Nick.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Friday 21 March 2008 14:32:53 Lars NoodC)n wrote: If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? I wasn't able to spot anything in either the OpenBSD FAQ or the Misc mailing list archive. Regards, -Lars I think you want /usr/share/misc/license.template? --STeve Andre'
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Friday 21 March 2008, Theo de Raadt wrote: Too late. ;) It looks like the old ISC code or almost the original BSD license, which I cannot find. I'm getting worse at searching, but it seems things are disappearing, too. Note even just using the word license creates confusion, since license implies contract law. Outside the US, the rest of the world does not use contract law for copyright. In the entire world, copyright grants you all rights to something until you surrender some rights, with a piece of text, but that text only loosely called a license. In OpenBSD we use an ISC-style copyright text since it does what is needed. It is simply a statement of right granting... 1) Declaration of copyright by the author 2) A decleration that the author retains the right to be known as the author, but surrenders all other rights granted by the law. (In copyright law if the author does not surrended a right, he retains it; in this way we revoke all rights except the one we care about). 3) Because of the existance of both declerations together, it therefore means that the text cannot be removed from the files. If someone removes the first (1) line, then there is nothing to say that the rights grant (2) is under copyright law since anyone could have written it; alternatively if that someone deletes the rights grant (2), then there is no indication that any rights are granted -- thus, by copyright law, they were not granted. So anyone who changes/removes the text is reducing their rights to the files. That is enough to satisfy every legal system on the planet which follows the Berne Convention. Some legal systems require even less than what the ISC license does, since they base their national copyright laws more strictly on the original intent behind the Berne convention -- ie. the European concept of the moral rights of the author, ie. the original idea behind the treaty. (The 2/3-term BSD license meant to do basically the same, but it used more words to do the same. The old 4-term BSD license included some terms to make University of California benefit from advertising, if there was going to be any.) Watch out for the new ISC license, because the FSF lawyers have convinced the ISC to do something totally stupid. It now uses a phrase and/or to mean or, but some country's legal systems might not understand and/or in the way the old or was used in the sentence. I disagree with what ISC did; I am not confident that their change is good. The attribution requirement seems to suggest that the Creative Commons Attribution license is a close match: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ For the sake of conformity I would something with a URL hosted by a well-known project. Please avoid using that creativecommons bullshit for anything -- it it tries to hide the fundamentals and simplicity of basic copyright law behind the massive complexity of US-centric contract law and the various terminology normally tied to tit for tat. In the end, creativecommons licenses will only ever truly benefit one group of people on this planet: The lawyers. Copyright does not need contract law to keep things free. What those creativecommons people are feeding people is a fraud. I (and many many others) give software away so that the whole world world can benefit, but if there was one group who should benefit last it is the bottom feeding assholes who make giving away harder than it needs to be. And that is exactly what creativecommons tries to do. 2300 words to say you must say I wrote it? There is only one reason it could take 2300 words: The goal is to deceive. With a cousin and soon a brother who are lawyers, I can say there is at least one more reason why it takes 2300 words of bullshit contact law to give something away and retain attribution; it keeps the US lawyers in business. Kind Regards, JCR
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Nick Holland wrote: I'm not entirely sure what you are asking... Then ask for clarification. The default in the Berne convention countries is to restrict distribution, unless specified otherwise. I want to specify otherwise. I'm looking for a short notice, ideally one line notice (pref short URL), that matches (or is) OpenBSD's ISC-variant that I can use for written works that are not code. e.g. technical writing, documentation, howtos, etc. Daniel, William and Theo pointed out in separate messages the ISC-style license is used for code in the OpenBSD project. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup I would like to be sure which statement, if any, for non-code material is already used in OpenBSD, or if there is any established practice. Anyone can write a copyright statement. It's simply more convenient for me to use one that is already written. It's even better if it is the same one as is used in an existing project. It's also convenient for the recipient(s) to see wording they've seen before. Licenses, or more accurately, copyright statements are a tool to do one thing or another. The most visible ones, like Creative Commons, are as Theo pointed out, overly long and complex. Further, for *my* purpose in just this particular case, though I have used it for other things, CC does not do what I want. ... publish on other people's site, you follow their rules or guidelines... I looked around in the OpenBSD manpages first using 'apropos' and missed the ISC license template provided in the base distribution because /usr/share/misc/license.template was not in whatis.db with apropos nor elsewhere I looked. ... Usually, I prefer that what I write either stay under regular copyright law... In Berne Convention countries, it is all under regular copyright law, or else it remains unpublished. If no copyright statement is provided with the work, then the default is restriction on re-redistribution, etc. As said above, I a) want to specify otherwise, and b) would prefer to use wording already hashed out [1] by others c) am dealing with technical writing and documentation, not code Regards, -Lars [1] If you're going to re-invent the wheel at least try to re-invent a better one.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:37:51PM +0200, Lars Nood??n wrote: If no copyright statement is provided with the work, then the default is restriction on re-redistribution, etc. As said above, I a) want to specify otherwise, and What specifically do you want to permit? This is the rub where choosing a copyright notice is concerned. If you wouldn't mind your writing being copied verbatim into a book that is then sold for profit by others, even though your copyright notice is included, then just use the same ISC license as OpenBSD code uses. If you want more restriction than this, tell us what restrictions you want. b) would prefer to use wording already hashed out [1] by others You may find that no other project has the exact same restrictions as you wish to maintain. c) am dealing with technical writing and documentation, not code You answer to what the differences mean between code on the one hand and writing and documentation on ther other hand, will inform you of what restrictions you think are important. Regards, -Lars Doug.
BSD Documentation License?
If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? I wasn't able to spot anything in either the OpenBSD FAQ or the Misc mailing list archive. Regards, -Lars
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:32:53PM +0200, Lars Noodin wrote: If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? I wasn't able to spot anything in either the OpenBSD FAQ or the Misc mailing list archive. See: /usr/share/misc/license.template cheers, -b
Re: BSD Documentation License?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 02:41:27PM -0400, William Boshuck wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:32:53PM +0200, Lars Noodin wrote: If one has to identify a specific license (or licenses) for OpenBSD documentation, which is/are recommended? Is there a generic BSD-Documenation License anymore? I wasn't able to spot anything in either the OpenBSD FAQ or the Misc mailing list archive. See: /usr/share/misc/license.template cheers, -b Crap. Please ignore that, and accept my apologies.
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Crap. Please ignore that ... Too late. ;) It looks like the old ISC code or almost the original BSD license, which I cannot find. I'm getting worse at searching, but it seems things are disappearing, too. The attribution requirement seems to suggest that the Creative Commons Attribution license is a close match: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ For the sake of conformity I would something with a URL hosted by a well-known project. -Lars
Re: BSD Documentation License?
Lars NoodC)n wrote: Crap. Please ignore that ... Too late. ;) It looks like the old ISC code or almost the original BSD license, which I cannot find. I'm getting worse at searching, but it seems things are disappearing, too. The attribution requirement seems to suggest that the Creative Commons Attribution license is a close match: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ For the sake of conformity I would something with a URL hosted by a well-known project. If that would make you fell better, here is a URL from a well known project: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup or the text itself only too. (; http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=1.2 Best, Daniel
