Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
"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."
The final sentence is incorrect, at least in terms of how CC licenses
operate. If the expression is licensed under a CC license (or the CC0 back
up license, as described here), then that license is available to anyone
who reuses that expression as a matter of copyright and the closely related
rights as defined in CC0 or the CC license.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 6:26 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
___
License-disc
Re: [License-discuss] MakeHuman, CC0 and AGPL
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] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1
Hi everyone, As regards CC0 and its use by the USG, you may find this comment we posted previously of possible interest and relevance. https://github.com/WhiteHouse/source-code-policy/issues/149 Diane Diane M. Peters General Counsel, Creative Commons Portland, Oregon http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters 13:00-21:00 UTC On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Jim Wright wrote: > > > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but ... > > > > Jim, I'm on your side on this. :-) I'm hoping that a U.S. government open > source policy, someday published in the Federal Register and bearing the > force of law, will also include an express patent pledge that we can all > rely on. Copyright isn't enough. Maybe even UPL? > > > > Such a pledge could become a model for other large patent-holding > institutions, such as universities, to give open source users reassurance > that they are not patent infringers. > > > > That's a bigger topic than for here. It is largely up to that public > Federal Register process that eventually may ensue. It has nothing to do > with OSI's approval of CC0. This WE can do now on our own on behalf of > government open source. > > > > /Larry > > > > > > *From:* Jim Wright [mailto:jim.wri...@oracle.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 2:59 PM > *To:* lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org > *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army > Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1 > > > > Something is certainly better than nothing, I agree, but I think many of > us would rather have an express and broad license from all participants in > a project, including the government, than to have to rely on less than well > understood public domain dedications and waivers of patent rights that do > not apply to all participants. Something closer to symmetry and broad > coverage should be achievable here IMHO - the perfect may sometimes be the > enemy of the good, but in this case, we can, I think, do better than CC0. > YMMV of course. > > > > Best, > > Jim > > > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Jim Wright wrote: > > > it seems odd to me to require a dedication to the public domain in any > event - stuff is either in the public domain by law or isn’t, and to > whatever extent it isn’t, we should have a copyright license, full stop. > Similarly as to patents, I don’t want to have to look at some ostensible > policy on waiving patent rights, we should all have a clearly scoped patent > license for the project, government and private contributors alike, and > there is an easy vehicle to achieve this, use an OSI approved license. > > > > Jim, regardless of which OSI-approved license(s) the U.S. government > chooses for its distributed software, neither the "public domain" question > nor the "patent license" question will EVER be fully answered for any > particular software simply by reading those licenses. You have to look at > the software itself. Of course, we could all sue each other and let the > courts decide > > > > I'll be grateful for a published government policy – perhaps posted in the > Federal Register someday – that reassures us of a commitment by government > agencies to open source using *any* OSI-approved license. > > > > Including CC0. > > > > /Larry > > > > ___ > 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 > > ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0
Copyright is not available for US government works as a matter of US copyright law (section 105), but that does not mean those works may not be restricted by copyright laws of other countries. Congress contemplated that expressly. “The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.” Notes of Committee on the Judiciary (re Section 105), H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1976) Given this, it remains unclear how a license to the worldwide public would be invalidated by a court? Please say more. On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) < cem.f.karan@mail.mil> wrote: > The only reason that the ARL OSL was proposed AT ALL is because there is a > strong concern that since USG code doesn't have copyright [1], any license > that relies exclusively on copyright may be invalidated by the courts > [2]. If > the USG had copyright, then I could stop pushing the ARL OSL entirely as we > could use any of the OSI-supplied licenses. > > So to be 100% clear, we don't know if any copyright-based license will > stand > up in court for works that don't have copyright attached. The only reason > that the ARL OSL was proposed was to deal with that particular situation. > If > you have case law where the USG won a lawsuit over material licensed under > one > of the copyright-based OSI licenses where there was no claim of copyright, > please provide it. I can pass that to the ARL Legal team who can then > review > it. > > Thanks, > Cem Karan > > [1] I'm making the usual assumption that this was code created by USG > employees in the course of their duties; copyright can be assigned to the > USG > where and when it exists, but I'm ignoring that for right now. > > [2] My expectation is that it would be invalidated for the USG-supplied > portion, but not for any portion that had copyright attached. Note that > this > is just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up. IANAL. > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > > Behalf Of Smith, McCoy > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:54 PM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > Or to put a finer point on it, the other issues you identify appear to be > > ones that are explicitly addressed in many already-approved OSI > > licenses, including Apache 2.0, the one you are modeling your license > upon. > > > > I hope you're getting a sense that there are several lawyers on this > mailing > > list -- lawyers who have years of experience looking at, > > debating, and giving advice on the issues you identify in this > submission -- > > who think that your proposed license is a variant of Apache 2.0 > > designed to solve a "problem" for USG users with Apache 2.0 that we are > > skeptical even exists. Perhaps the ARL lawyers can clarify what > > the problem is, and that we are missing something. But I think at least > I > > am having a hard time understanding how this license does > > anything that Apache 2.0 doesn't. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: License-discuss > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of > Richard > > Fontana > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:33 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: > > U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) > > 0.4.0 > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:17:07PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM > ARL > > (US) wrote: > > > > > > Once again, liability isn't the only issue; there are also copyright > > > issues (for contributors), and IP issues. If we could solve the > > > problem via a simple disclaimer of liability, we would. We need to > handle > > > ALL the issues. > > > > Even if you were correct in the assertions you've made about ARL code, > why > > is a new license needed for contributors other than ARL? > > > > ___ > 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] Words that don't mean derivative work
To the extent helpful, we at CC put a lot of thought into how to best
define the notion of what constitutes a derivative work ("Adapted Material"
in CC 4.0 vernacular) when we last versioned. We expressly tied it to
copyright law. If a downstream licensee uses the work in a manner that
implicates the licensor's exclusive right under copyright to create
derivative works, then the ShareAlike condition is triggered. Not otherwise.
*Adapted Material* means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights
that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the
Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or
otherwise modified* in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright
and Similar Rights held by the Licensor* *[omitting additional clause re
synching]*
Diane
Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Simon Phipps the other day used the word "integration" to mean "derivative
> work." Recently on this and other open source email lists we've seen
> "combinations," "inclusion," "kernel space," "shim," "interface" and "API",
> "header file", and "linking".
>
>
>
> None of those is *ipso facto* a derivative work under U.S. copyright law.
> This is unfortunate for those of us who want to obey licenses. Wouldn't it
> be nice if the following sentence – by mutual agreement – was added to ALL
> of our FOSS licenses:
>
>
>
> *Licensor hereby additionally asserts that the copyleft, reciprocity,
> or derivative work obligations in this license only apply to software that
> is modified or expressly changed in its executable or source code form.*
>
>
>
> This is just a wish that the FOSS community could, in our vernacular,
> cooperate that consistently with the copyright law.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
> ___
> 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
