Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]

2017-10-25 Thread Rick Moen 
I've moved this to license-discuss because I'm not sure this is
part of discussion of any licence being evaluated, any more.  I 
could be wrong (and am certainly not criticising upthread posts).

Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):

> Again, OSI would be well-served by actually writing down the non-OSD
> criteria, or publicly admitting that the criteria are not agreed-to and
> non-transparent. I realize this would not be easy, but the current
> situation benefits no one.

When you say 'the non-OSD criteria', this assumes there is a set the
Board (and most outside commmenters?) would agree on.  That might be
true or might not.  The set Bruce adduced on license-review strike me as
capturing points most often mentioned.  

Let's suppose that set were listed on https://opensource.org/approval
with framing like 'OSI's Board cannot guarantee that the License Review
community will be interested in and comment on your license.  Reasons 
participating individuals have cited for disinterest in some past
licenses include perception that the license is a vanity license or
duplicative, that it is needlessly specific to one business entity, 
that it is unjustifiably opaque or ambiguous in its wording, that it was
not drafted with a lawyer's review or has legal flaws suggesting legal
review was inadequate or unheeded, that it is essentially unused by
significant amounts of current software and appears unlikely to beecome
so, that it unduly burdens use by developers, business, or end-users, or
that it increases license proliferation and the complexity of the
resulting combinatorial license matrix without adequate compensating
merit.  All of these criteria are judgement calls be individual
participants, and end up mattering to those individuals (the License
Review Chair, OSI's Board, and outside participants) irrespective of
their being entirely informal and outside the OSD's wording.  At other
times, otherwise frequent commenters may withhold comment because they
lack specialized expertise, or just aren't interested.  Please note,
too, that individual participants tend to be unswayed by the argument
that you assembled your license using bits and pieces of previously
approved license, if those other concerns apply in their view.'[1]

Ask yourself, is that really an improvement?  (Even imaginaing better
wordsmithing than mine, I have doubts.)  In my experience, submitters
invariably think such judgements are wrong in _their_ cases or should be
set aside for their benefit.  Also, these really _are_ judgement calls:
For example, license-review has appeared to take seriously, over the
last few years, a number of permissive licenses I considered lacking any
reasonable purpose.  Other regulars obviously have greater patience in
that area.  So, whose non-OSD criteria are worthy of mention?  Other
than mine, of course.  ;->

What I'd predict is that this would merely shift the bone of contention.
Scorned submitters would rail against non-OSD criteria being unfair,
vague, and also wrongly applied (reminiscent of the old joke about
'terrible food, and such small portions!').  This will then be followed
by the now-obligatory declaration that OSI is irrelevant and [something
du jour] has replaced it.


[1] Here I've used Yank-standard spelling because 
https://opensource.org/approval does.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

2017-10-25 Thread John Cowan 
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Lindsay Patten 
wrote:

> Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
> domain while maintaining a license on another copy?  Or is it the work
> itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce
> copyright on any copies has been surrendered?  My understanding was that
> works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that
> placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might
> have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously
> released under.  You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can
> be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright
> restrictions?
>
I oversimplified.  A work in the copyright sense is really an expression of
the abstract work.  Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is an abstraction existing
in people's minds (originally only Beethoven's mind) and not in itself
subject to copyright, whereas each draft of it that he wrote down, as well
as each recorded performance of any draft, constitute different expressions
("fixations" in copyright jargon) of the abstract work.  Likewise, multiple
editions of a book are separate expressions. Each expression exists in one
or more manifestations.  For example, a specific recording of the symphony,
which is an expression, can be manifested as a vinyl disk, a cassette, a
CD, a digital version.  The manifestations of a book might be as a
hardback, a paperback, an e-book, or in a single-volume vs. a multi-volume
version.  And each manifestation typically exists in multiple copies.

Copyright status attaches to the expression: if a specific expression is in
the public domain, then all manifestations and copies are too. .  The 11th
Britannica (an expression which manifests as a set of books and several
websites)  is in the public domain, whereas the 15th Britannica is not.
Licenses can attach to an expression, a manifestation (you may have one
license for a CD and a different one for digital audio), and exceptionally
to a copy.

CC0 is both a public domain dedication and a license.  If the dedication is
effective, then it affects all the manifestations (on a website or a
CD/DVD-ROM) and copies.  If it is not, then the permissive license affects
only the copies it is attached to.

> With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete
> case.  Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files
>
> 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with
> MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman.
>
> 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its
> appearance created by the user using MakeHuman
>
> 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection of
> texture images.
>
> Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option.  What is the copyright
> status of the three files?  Are all three files now in the public domain?
> Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being
> restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't
> been taken?  Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is
> in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright?
> If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert
> to AGPL if you make any modifications?
>
I can't answer this specifically.  But in general, a work that combines
public-domain material and copyrighted material is itself subject to
copyright, provided the copyrighted material is used under license.
Obviously, if the creator of the combined work and of the copyrighted
material are the same, such a license isn't hard to obtain.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
My confusion is rapidly waxing
For XML Schema's too taxing:
I'd use DTDs / If they had local trees --
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

2017-10-25 Thread Diane Peters 
It's the former if you're using CC0. The work itself -- in whatever form
and whatever the number of copies -- is placed as nearly as possible in the
public domain. You could try to enforce a license on a particular copy, but
you can't enforce it as a matter of copyright and related rights (as
defined in CC0).

Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC


On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Lindsay Patten 
wrote:

> Thank you for your quick response!
>
> Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public
> domain while maintaining a license on another copy?  Or is it the work
> itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce
> copyright on any copies has been surrendered?  My understanding was that
> works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and that
> placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim you might
> have on any copies regardless of what license they may have been previously
> released under.  You seem to be saying that a particular copy of a work can
> be placed in the public domain while other copies remain under copyright
> restrictions?
>
> With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete
> case.  Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files
>
> 1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with
> MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman.
>
> 2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its
> appearance created by the user using MakeHuman
>
> 3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection of
> texture images.
>
> Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option.  What is the copyright
> status of the three files?  Are all three files now in the public domain?
> Can the user, or a third party use the individual files without being
> restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 option hadn't
> been taken?  Or is it only the particular combination of the three that is
> in the public domain while the individual files are still under copyright?
> If it is only the combination that is in the public domain, does it revert
> to AGPL if you make any modifications?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> On 2017-10-25 11:04 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten 
> wrote:.
>>
>> My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed
>> the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a
>> particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that.  If the user takes the CC0
>> option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into
>> the export?  Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the
>> MakeHuman authors?
>>
> Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided
> that the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright.  Third party copyrights
> are of course unaffected.
>
>> What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to
>> a particular copy of a work,
>>
> Every license is applicable only to particular copies.  The self-same
> bunch of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits
> certain acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy which
> has completely different conditions from the commercial license.  As long
> as the licensor is the owner, that's just fine.  SImilarly, bits inside an
> executable that have been compiled from a BSD source are (at least
> arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the same executable come from
> GPLed source.
>
> --
> John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
> The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves.
> --Julius Caesar
>
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing 
> listLicense-discuss@opensource.orghttps://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

2017-10-25 Thread Lindsay Patten 

Thank you for your quick response!

Can you clarify whether you can you put a copy of a work in the public 
domain while maintaining a license on another copy?  Or is it the work 
itself that is placed in the public domain, and any ability to enforce 
copyright on any copies has been surrendered? My understanding was that 
works are placed in the public domain while copies are licensed, and 
that placing a work in the public domain renounces any copyright claim 
you might have on any copies regardless of what license they may have 
been previously released under.  You seem to be saying that a particular 
copy of a work can be placed in the public domain while other copies 
remain under copyright restrictions?


With regard to bundled exports, it would help me to look at a concrete 
case.  Say we have an export from MakeHuman that consists of three files


1) A 3D mesh that was created starting with a 3D mesh that comes with 
MakeHuman and transformed by the user using MakeHuman.


2) A meta-data file containing information about the character and its 
appearance created by the user using MakeHuman


3) A texture in the form of an image file from the MakeHuman collection 
of texture images.


Let's say the user chooses to take the CC0 option.  What is the 
copyright status of the three files?  Are all three files now in the 
public domain?  Can the user, or a third party use the individual files 
without being restricted by the AGPL license that would apply if the CC0 
option hadn't been taken?  Or is it only the particular combination of 
the three that is in the public domain while the individual files are 
still under copyright?  If it is only the combination that is in the 
public domain, does it revert to AGPL if you make any modifications?


Thanks again.


On 2017-10-25 11:04 AM, John Cowan wrote:



On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten 
> wrote:.


My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have
placed the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in
case the law in a particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that.  If
the user takes the CC0 option, what is the status of the
individual assets that are bundled into the export?  Are they in
the public domain or still copyrighted by the MakeHuman authors?

Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided 
that the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright.  Third party 
copyrights are of course unaffected.


What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be
applied to a particular copy of a work,

Every license is applicable only to particular copies. The self-same 
bunch of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits 
certain acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy 
which has completely different conditions from the commercial 
license.  As long as the licensor is the owner, that's just fine. 
SImilarly, bits inside an executable that have been compiled from a 
BSD source are (at least arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the 
same executable come from GPLed source.


--
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan 
 co...@ccil.org 

The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves.
        --Julius Caesar



___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

2017-10-25 Thread John Cowan 
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Lindsay Patten 
wrote:.
>
> My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed
> the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law in a
> particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that.  If the user takes the CC0
> option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled into
> the export?  Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by the
> MakeHuman authors?
>
Those particular copies are effectively in the public domain, provided that
the MakeHuman folks actually hold copyright.  Third party copyrights are of
course unaffected.

> What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to a
> particular copy of a work,
>
Every license is applicable only to particular copies.  The self-same bunch
of bits may have a commercial license for one copy that permits certain
acts and forbids others, and a GPL license on another copy which has
completely different conditions from the commercial license.  As long as
the licensor is the owner, that's just fine.  SImilarly, bits inside an
executable that have been compiled from a BSD source are (at least
arguably) under the GPL if other bits in the same executable come from
GPLed source.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
The whole of Gaul is quartered into three halves.
--Julius Caesar
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL

2017-10-25 Thread Lindsay Patten 

Hello,

I'm hoping I can get a better understanding of the licenses associated 
with MakeHuman.


MakeHuman is a program that allows you to generate 3D human characters, 
adjusting numerous parameters such as height, weight, gender, race, 
facial and body details, clothing, etc. etc.  The program is licensed 
with the AGPL.  It creates exports consisting of 3D meshes, material 
descriptions, and texture images.  The exports are licensed AGPL as 
well, but if they are produced using an unmodified official version of 
the program the user is granted the option to apply CC0 instead.


   As a special and limited exception, the copyright holders of the
   MakeHuman assets grants the option to use CC0 1.0 Universal as
   published by the Creative Commons, either version 1.0 of the
   License, or (at your option) any later version, as a license for the
   MakeHuman characters exported under the conditions that a) The
   assets were bundled in an export that was made using the file export
   functionality inside an OFFICIAL and UNMODIFIED version of MakeHuman
   and/or b) the asset solely consists of a 2D binary image in PNG, BMP
   or JPG format.

My understanding of CC0 is that it is a declaration that you have placed 
the work in the public domain, with a fallback license in case the law 
in a particular jurisdiction doesn't permit that.  If the user takes the 
CC0 option, what is the status of the individual assets that are bundled 
into the export?  Are they in the public domain or still copyrighted by 
the MakeHuman authors?


What I find confusing is whether CC0 is a license that can be applied to 
a particular copy of a work, or if using CC0 means the work itself, not 
just a particular copy of it, is placed in the public domain.  I'm also 
unsure about licensing a bundle of assets.


The complete license is at http://www.makehuman.org/license.php and 
there is an explanation of it at 
http://www.makehuman.org/license_explanation.php


I am interested in understanding the implications of the current 
license, and also in knowing if there is a better way to license 
MakeHuman that prevents MakeHuman non-code assets from being used in 
closed source software, while still allowing unencumbered use of the 
exported character.


I should say that the vast majority of MakeHuman users do not 
redistribute the exported character data, they use it to create images 
or video, which MakeHuman makes no claim on.  The only time there are 
issues is if the generated character is used in a larger work, such as a 
game, 3D artwork, or VR experience.


Thanks,
    Lindsay


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss