Thus spake "Jean-Christophe Helary" <jean.christophe.hel...@gmail.com> on 10/7/12 11:52 PM:
>On Oct 8, 2012, at 1:18 AM, Robert J. Lang <rob...@langorigami.com> wrote: >>Sellers are encouraged in the guidelines to put their desired licensing >> terms in their product descriptions. Yash has chosen not to do that. It >> may or may not result in an outcome that he doesn't like, but it's his >> choice as a seller/author. (If he doesn't like the outcome, he can >>change >> his mind in the future.) > >That's where I am not clear with what The Source, and the people >involved, like you, are trying to do with that download store, after all >the discussions here on copyright, remuneration etc. Basically, we're trying to provide a marketplace where people can buy and sell origami instructional materials in a way that includes individual model instructions. It also provides a way for sellers to more clearly specify their licensing terms and desires than has been done in the past. >What I am seeing from the guideline here: >http://origamiusa.org/guidelines-for-download-sellers > >is that "licensing terms" for diagrams is only mentioned as a side note >in the "details" of the product description. And you're suggestion by "side note" seems to be saying that it should be more prominent. Upon reflection, I'm inclined to agree with you (and to bump up its prominence in the guidelines). >Couldn't The Source have a clearer policy regarding licensing terms for >the diagrams ? At present, our policy is "author/sellers should mark their sales with what usages they allow, but it's their choice as to whether they do so or what they say." That possibly could be phrased more clearly than it is. (Maybe, like what I just said.) >Are the existing licenses already defined ? Well the rightsowner project (which is what would define the existing licenses) hasn't started up, so they're not defined yet. But I expect they will be early in the discussions. Thanks for your comments, Robert
