gmane.org.creativecommons.general

opendata diagram

Simone Aliprandi — 2012-05-21T17:29:00

I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata
licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to
their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only,
public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand
the actual situation of database (open)licensing.
Comments (on the blog) are welcome.
http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html
Bye,

(no subject)

nathaniel — 2012-05-12T16:32:06

timekeeper3341-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ< at >public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: forum

Nathan Kinkade — 2012-05-09T19:25:17

Hi,

I presume you are using the term "forum" in the original/general sense
to indicate this very mail list, and not the other thing known as the
"CC Forum" (http://forum.creativecommons.org).  If that is the case,
then there is no need to post to this list once to confirm your
subscription, though I infer our subscription worked by the fact that
your mail arrived on the list.

Best,

Nathan

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:04 PM, zmiller <zmiller.home< at >gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

forum

zmiller — 2012-05-09T18:04:59

Hi,

I'd like to join the forum.  I registered, but I'm unclear whether I now
need to email this address first to complete the registration, or whether I
am supposed to email forum questions to this email address.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

open position at Creative Commons: Project Coordinator for Science and Data

Timothy Vollmer — 2012-04-25T22:27:10

FYI - Here's a new job opening at CC. Please help spread the word to your
networks.

Blog post - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32434

Full description - http://creativecommons.org/opportunities#scienceanddata

Creative Commons is seeking a Project Coordinator for Science and Data! The
Project Coordinator will organize, coordinate and manage projects related
to data policy and governance and perform research and analysis on data
governance topics across relevant sectors — particularly for science — and
communicate results and recommendations from the project via writing and
related outreach.

We are looking for someone who is experienced in policy analysis,
development and processes, in addition to Open Source Software, Open
Access/Open Data and other Open content projects. A science and/or legal
background with international experience is highly desirable — especially
as the position will be representing Creative Commons at global events in
the Open Data and Open Science communities! See the job posting and apply
at our opportunities
page<http://creativecommons.org/opportunities#scienceanddata>.
Position is open until filled.

Thank you,

Re: "Let's CC" is released as open source

2012-04-23T01:31:11

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:23:12 +0900, Jay Yoon <iwillbe99< at >gmail.com>
wrote:

I can give you this link for kompoz:

http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/home.developer

I don't know if it is the sort of info you are looking for though.

I also did a search for internet archive and api and got this link:

http://archive.org/help/json.php

Hope it helps.

all the best,

drew

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: "Let's CC" is released as open source

Jay Yoon — 2012-04-23T01:23:12

Good idea!

them

Is there any person on this list who are in Kompoz and the Internet archive
or
can provide the information about this suggestion?

Jay

Jongsoo Yoon (Jay Yoon)
Presiding Judge, Seoul Northern District Court
Project Lead, Creative Commons Korea
mobile : 82-10-9187-9476
email :  iwillbe99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org
twitter : iwillbe99



2012년 4월 19일 오후 11:24, drew Roberts <zotz< at >100jamz.com>님의 말:

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Cultural Appropriation and IP

Danny Piccirillo — 2012-04-22T17:30:16

Hello all,

I'm writing a paper an cultural appropriation and IP.

Specifically, there are one or two points I want to make.
 * IP is not a good way to protect against cultural appropriation
 * IP may encourag cultural appropriation

For the former, I need to show how IP has been ineffective for protecting
marginalized cultures from appropriation, how there may be a separate legal
framework, and draw on examles of successful protections in the past. If a
legal framework is not necessary, what else can be done?

For the latter, it's a point i'm not sure can be made, but any help
building or criticizing the idea is appreciated!

What do you all think? Please forward this to anyone you think would be
knowledgeable on this

Re: "Let's CC" is released as open source

Anne Fitzgerald — 2012-04-22T09:06:15

Hi Jay

Thanks for the update on your search service.  We have put a post about it on the Creative Commons Australia website - see http://creativecommons.org.au/ and http://creativecommons.org.au/weblog/entry/3511

regards
Anne


Professor Anne Fitzgerald
QUT Law Faculty
am.fitzgerald-OLQOJ2pKmJQQrrorzV6ljw< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:am.fitzgerald-OLQOJ2pKmJQQrrorzV6ljw< at >public.gmane.org>

skype: amfitzgerald2

________________________________
From: cc-community-bounces-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org [cc-community-bounces-rm8PX32fqvY< at >public.gmane.orgiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jay Yoon [iwillbe99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org]
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:05 AM
To: cc-community-rm8PX32fqvbMZ2x0e22RKNi2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org
Subject: [cc-community] "Let's CC" is released as open source


Dear all,


As some of you know, CC Korea has opened a search service, so called 'LetsCC' http://eng.letscc.net.



Let’s CC offers quick and easy access to search services provided by some companies from one single

page like search.creativecommons.org<http://search.creativecommons.org/>. It makes use of the APIs provided by Fiickr, Jamendo, ccMixter,

Youtube and Slideshare, so you can find CC-licensed images, sounds, videos and docs at once with just

one click. You can also save your favorite contents, add tags to them, search them and check most favorite

contents of all users. Let’ CC‘ let contents which is to be set favorites locate the top of search results

so as to let users find more relevant contents easily. We has tried to put emphasis on simplicity,

convenience and efficiency for designing this service.


Now the code of "Let's CC" http://eng.letscc.net<http://eng.letscc.net/>, is distributed as open source.
Please refer to https://github.com/neomparam/letscc.

I hope you find it useful.

If you have any idea related to Lets CC, feel free to let us know via me or creative-+2GKGYw0ye5AfugRpC6u6w< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:creative-+2GKGYw0ye5AfugRpC6u6w< at >public.gmane.org> .

Thanks

Jay

Jongsoo Yoon (Jay Yoon)
Project Lead, Creative Commons Korea
Presiding Judge, Seoul Northern District Court
mobile : 82-10-9187-9476
email :  iwillbe99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:iwillbe99-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
twitter : iwillbe99

_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Alan Cox — 2012-04-21T07:54:51

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:48:30 +0100
Rob Myers <rob-MHOfhu0kjIxg9hUCZPvPmw< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:


I think that's an artificial divide constructed by the human love of
putting things into neat little boxes. Is Conways 'Game of Life' an
educational demonstration, a mathematical model, a bit of software, or a
piece of art ?

To me what it is depends on the context, and also the frame of reference
of the viewer. I can pick up a piece of well written source code and see
it as art for the way it is written and constructed, as people see and
create works of poetry. To someone else that same pile of squiggles is
purely functional and does their taxes.

More clearly perhaps code and data are the same thing. The very essence
of Turing is that you can use numbers to represent operations as well as
values. If I digitise the Mona Lisa then its data, so its code. That code
being a set of instructions on how the JPEG decoder should reconstruct
the recorded image.


This seems a reasonable assertion for the most part but suppose the
program is constructing art from analysing its own source code ?


The code may well be art, but the code is a *different* work of art to
the output if so. Although the latter may and often contains bits of the
former.


It is also not neccessary to keep requiring attribution in order to
achieve the specific freedoms that the FSF identified and seeks to
preserve.

Likewise commercial redistribution, support, modification etc are not a
threat to those freedoms. Certain abilities to charge are also bounded by
economics in convenient ways.

In the original days of the FSF this made even more sense. The cost of
shuffling magnetic tapes around the planet is not remotely close to zero,
and therefore not only was commercial distribution not a threat to the
intended freedoms, prohibiting it would have been as nobody would be able
to get the software.

Several of the GPL constructs around offers to provide source primarily
exist because of this history.

Alan
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Alan Cox — 2012-04-21T07:42:33

A better example would be postscript - which is a full programming
language.

I think you need to distinguish between the code/data for the artwork and
the code/data of the tool to create it. If William Shakespeare wrote
Macbeth in MS Word and printed it in potscript then it doesn't make MS
Word "art", but the postscript file that prints the document clearly in
some ways does embody the work in question.

Some of the most clear cases of this are from tools like OpenSCAD and
even more so IntrinsicCAD. Here a compile and print produces an actual
physical representation of the geometry.

You can't however apply the CC licensing to the chair only to the design
itself. Once I receive a chair I can modify it, resell it etc because
that isn't "copying" and because of the way rights exhaustion works.

That also makes it very hard to construct things like "non-commercial"
licensing models for such stuff. That has btw also come up with software,
where non-commercial agreeements about pricing/shipping didn't adhere to
the product after first sale and the software was re-sold for a profit.

Alan
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Patrick Anderson — 2012-04-21T03:11:06

Everything, including all music in this computer program is
procedurally generated: http://Cultivation.SourceForge.net

Watch the video and tell me this is not art.


Wow, this guy [ http://HCSoftware.SourceForge.net/jason-rohrer ] is
amazing!: http://InsideAStarFilledSky.net
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: [cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM

Anthony — 2012-04-21T02:44:30

Once again you bring up the suggestion that CC-BY-SA hasing something
to do with opposing copyright.  Where are you getting this from?


What in the world are you talking about?  A derivative is, by
definition, copyrighted, and ShareAlike of course does not prohibit
distribution of derivatives.

ShareAlike requires that derivatives be licensed.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Anthony — 2012-04-21T02:38:30

What meaning are we using for "art"?  I agree that, philosophically
speaking, code tends not to be art, because its purpose and function
tends to be non-aesthetic.  But legally speaking, source code is a
type of literary work, which I guess would fall under the category of
"art".

In any case, I think the line between code which produces a visual
work of art, and code which is itself part of the visual work of art,
is a bit more blurry than you are making it out to be, in quite normal
everyday cases.  For example, consider an SVG file or a POV-Ray scene
description file.  Is it code, is it a visual work of art, is it both,
or is it neither?
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Rob Myers — 2012-04-20T23:48:30

Philosophically speaking, software is fungible but cultural works are not.


This will either be a derivative of an existing non-code artwork or an 
improvisation that lacks a fixed form. In neither case will the artwork 
be an adaptation of the code, it will be its output. (IANAL, TINLA).


This is the same.


Because except in very carefully constructed cases the code in itself is 
not the art, its output (the copyrightable image or text or whatever) is.


The GPL requires the preservation of copyright notices.

Attribution can be burdensome. This is as true of cultural works as it 
is of software.


http://web.archive.org/web/20110311133009/http://www.negativland.com/riaa/tenets.html

It is more the case that it is useful to distinguish between the 
restrictions that copyright law imposes on computer programs and on 
other kinds of copyrightable works than that we cannot program artworks.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Patrick Anderson — 2012-04-20T23:34:16

If code is art, then I wonder why the
GNU GPL not require attribution.


Another thought on the (artificial) border
between code and art:

Imagine a paint program where you can
record your inputs and play them back
as macros, but those macros may also
be text-edited as procedural code.

Is such a macro art, or is it code?

I've never seen a convincing argument
that fully separates these domains,
and I would say it is because there is
no actual difference, but instead there
is a seamless continuum between
those that think one way (maybe more
in pictures) and those that think in
another way (maybe more in text)...
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: [cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM

Alan Cox — 2012-04-20T23:22:05

Free speech only applies to political speech anyway.


And historically we hit this with export of crypto code for example.
Bernstein never got to the US Supreme Court because the government was
terrified of them finding code was speech so we got a sort of fudge which
meant the code became exportable from the USA.

We may still find out if that is the case - software patents and code is
speech will make for an interesting mix when the whole software patent
catastrophe eventually rolls into the US supreme court.

Alan
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: [cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM

Rob Myers — 2012-04-20T23:00:33

Then rather than imposing double the cost on vendors, why not simply 
allow them to distribute CC-licensed works without imposing DRM?


Oonce no vendor is offering the work, only the illegal-to-remix version 
will be possessed by individuals.

Which makes the promises that the CC licenses make to them rather hollow.


Copyright restricts free speech.

Sharealike is a way of tackling this where it is used.


False dichotomy.

DRM in China is the same problem as DRM wherever we're assuming we are. 
Copyright in China is the same problem as copyright wherever we're 
assuming we are. Both can be tackled within both jurisdictions by a 
copyleft license. State censorship cannot.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: [cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM

Rob Myers — 2012-04-20T22:51:27

people who own iPhones also benefit, as do the people who own the iPhones.

"Creators" do not benefit by being locked into an exploitative 
ecosystem. And "consumers" do not benefit by losing their freedom to use 
the work.

If they wish to "benefit" from this, they can always simply not using a 
Creative Commons license.


Since the licenses take a critical position with regard to copyright 
they are already a "political" tool against something.

It is not the case that opposing copyright is politically neutral but 
that opposing DRM is politically charged.


A license cannot tackle state censorship within that state. It cannot 
modulate and ironise it. It can modulate and ironise those legal 
restrictions that can be licensed or refused within the state's legal 
system. Such as copyright or the imposition of DRM.


Then we should definitely get rid of ShareAlike, which prohibits 
distribution of copyrighted derivatives.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community

Re: “I thought cc-by-sa is GPL compatible” and license incompatibility woes

Arne Babenhauserheide — 2012-04-20T22:25:17

Am Freitag, 20. April 2012, 02:00:03 schrieb Anthony:
wrote:

And guarantee that you can keep the sources around for the next 3 years? And 
that you will withstand an attack if someone decides that you are an *** and 
gets all his friends to request the sources from you?

I think you see the problem: If the sources can’t be shared directly online, 
they can create real problems for the creator.


No. I explained how people are unimportant who take conscious steps to 
withhold the essential freedoms of free culture from me. For example by 
selecting a license with the *explicit goal* of not being compatible with 
other free culture licenses, even though there is no need for that. People who 
have the *intention* of splitting the free culture community are of no 
interest to me.

On the other hand, people who just want to create are the core of free 
culture. They should be able to take the easy choice and know that they do the 
right thing for free culture with that.

I want to be able to tell a painter: Just take cc by-sa.

Currently I have to tell them: Take cc by-sa, and also GPL, and publish your 
sourcefiles. Otherwise many free games won’t be able to use your images. But 
then don’t use any cc by-sa only content in your image. And no GPL-only 
content. Best don’t use any foreign content.

Do you see how the second is a really bad answer? That’s the present 
situation!
GPL compatibility in cc by-sa would allow me to just give the nice and short 
first answer with good conscience.


You create a contradiction between these two which does not have to exist. 

Currently it exists due to the borked legal setup. 
GPL compatibility in cc by-sa would go a big step towards lessening that 
contradiction and making it easy for people to just paint.

You want people to have to explicitely dual-license and worry about all the 
problems of incompatible licenses. Or to learn a few years later, that their 
content actually is not usable for a sizeable share of free culture projects 
because of some legal intricacies. 

And that’s the opposite of being able to just paint.

Best wishes,
Arne

Re: Code is Art (was: Version 4:0:Rebranding "noncommercial" to "commercial rights reserved": please don't!)

Alan Cox — 2012-04-20T20:57:25

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:40:40 -0600
Patrick Anderson <agnucius-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:


No, but the output of a program may not be.

Consider an obfuscated C contest entry that plots a sine wave.

The code is almost certainly "art". The sine wave however is probably not
going to be judged copyrightable... even in nuthouses like the USA.

Alan
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community