[Bf-committers] Blender CVS: When can we make collaborativ animation project?

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi Jean,

Apart from the quite long & clumsy name, the non-endorsement clause  
seems to make sense to me. Six months ago we had a long debate on the  
proper license for Blender content (especially for the old NaN content  
database). For simplicity and clarity we adopted the OpenContent  
license (www.opencontent.org). This license doesn't explicitely forbid  
to use artist's or writer's names... nevertheless, I think that right  
(to mention a creator) is pretty straightforward restricted, and  
per-definition owned by the creator himself.

I will content opencontent.org about this issue to verify, and involve  
the docboard in it as well. Not that I want to open the discussion  
again... ;-)

-Ton-


> WARNING: This includes a shameless plug my preferred license for  
> content, the CC
> Attribution-ShareAlike License with an additional non-endorsement  
> clause.
>
> That would be very nice.  I'm working on some projects, including a  
> Novel[1]
> (which is in its third draft), which I'm working on converting to a  
> screenplay,
> and some proof of concept blender animations which will hopefully lead  
> to a full
> length feature film animated (hopefully with blender).
>
> I am using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license (sort  
> of a "GPL"
> for content and media), and would lobby for using it as the default  
> license,
> along with additional "non-endorsement" clause prohibiting derivative  
> works and
> artists from using the original artist's name to imply endorsement of  
> the
> derivative work for purposes of promotion.  Reserving that right  
> allows one, for
> example, to grant a particular publisher the right to say they are the  
> official
> "published by and paying royalties to the author" publisher, while  
> other
> publishers which may publish the same book (like Bantom did with LOTR)  
> will not
> be permitted to represent themselves as such.  Those wishing to reward  
> the
> author financially will then be able to have clear information on  
> which version
> to buy.  More importantly, the non-endorsement clause I added prevents  
> someone
> from taking my work, using it in a tasteless porn or neo-nazi  
> propoganda film,
> and claiming I endorse such a work.  They can use the material ... the  
> freedom
> granted allows it, however much it might annoy me, but they cannot  
> claim I
> approved of their usage, or their message.  This license IMHO allows  
> the maximum
> amount of freedom, while being certain to give the creator recognition  
> (the
> "Attribution" portion of the license), and insuring that all  
> derivative works
> remain likewise free a la the GPL (the "Share Alike") portion of the  
> license,
> while in turn protecting my own image and reputation, and giving me  
> something of
> value to trade to publishers if I'm ever so inclined (the  
> "non-endorsement"
> clause I added).
>
> Here is the text of the license notice in my novel
> (c.f.
> https://expressivefreedom.org/Projects/Autonomy/Episode-01/Book/Draft- 
> 03/Autonomy-Freedom-of-Thought-Draft-3-CC.html
> )
>
> [quote]
> Permission is hereby granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this  
> work under
> the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License,  
> Version 1.0 or
> any later version, a copy of which is included in Appendix A of this  
> work, and
> is viewable online at http://creativecommons.org/ , with the following  
> added
> restriction:
>
> You may not use my name, or any variation thereof, to promote, or imply
> endorsement of, any derivative work, or any publication of this work,  
> or any
> third party without my express, written permission.
>
> This does not absolve you of the requirement of attribution per the  
> Attribution
> clause of the Creative Commons License.
> [/quote]
>
> The license itself I have included in an appendix to the book.  I  
> won't list it
> here (it is a little verbose), but you can read it at the Creative  
> Commons
> website noted above.  Although CC offers many different variations, it  
> would be
> nice if the blender community could agree on one particular variation  
> (I would
> shamelessly plug the Attribution-ShareAlike variation, with the  
> non-endorsement
> clause added, of course), so that we all could use one another's work
> interchangably.
>
> For example, I'd love to use a realistic rocket flame to incorporate  
> in my own
> work, but the only one I've found is for static images, and has a  
> non-commercial
> clause that is too restrictive for my own licensing aims (which is to  
> ignite a
> renaissance in media similiar to that which the GPL and GNU/Linux have  
> done for
> the software industry).
>
>> If someone can answer me about this project, it will be a great
>> pleasure. (it's time to liberise the animation)
>
> I agree 100%.  With the power of cooperation and collaboration having  
> turned a
> multi-billion dollar industry on its ear (the software industry), the  
> notion of
> doing the same to the media cartels is rather delicious, to put it  
> mildly.
>
> [1]Autonomy - Freedom of Thought:  
> https://expressivefreedom.org/node.php?id=210
> [2]The Autonomy Project Overview:  
> https://expressivefreedom.org/node.php?id=187
>
> kind regards,
>
> Jean.
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers@blender.org
> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org