[Bf-docboard] Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 134, Issue 6
Ivan Paulos Tomé
greylica at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 01:35:16 CEST 2016
I'm sorry that I haven't answered before. I'm having little time to read
carefully the majority of the e-mails that comes here and I have a lot of
e-mails to read whenever I stop to see them.
This time, we will probably solve the question about commercial manuals and
derivative works with a newer solution, because this agreement definition
is again knocking our door and asking an answer. We may find a way to solve
the way we work today, and the way we create manuals and derivative works
in the future.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but everything we have made, was made
with the clear intention that the content will become useful to everyone
(even those that will become commercial users of the content), and thus we
have a subjective common sense agreement about everything we write to the
public and to ourselves. The common sense for the manual appears to be a
"use at your own wish", rather than "use at your own risk".
The majority of writers I knew are trying to avoid to take this matter very
seriously in the free software ecosystem to avoid long discussions, but we
know that once the material is translated, revised and printed, everything
suddenly changes. Copyright laws start to be applied in the way the words
and page layouts are organized and most of the citations are discarded by
ignorance. It reminds me the same situation as we have with litigations
between Free Software and Closed Software. If someone starts the patent war
again, both sides will be losing time and money as the history taught.
I'm very interested about the "Icon" discussions too, because we will
always end up using them whenever we create internal images from Blender to
explain panels, the software, etc. Is there a way to make an agreement
about this with the Blender Foundation and/or with the creator of the icons
to write commercial books ?
Is there a possibility to create a Blender specific solution ? *(Our own
solution ?)
I was ok with the "Open Content License" too.
Positive vibrations !
2016-04-10 7:00 GMT-03:00 <bf-docboard-request at blender.org>:
> Send Bf-docboard mailing list submissions to
> bf-docboard at blender.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bf-docboard-request at blender.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bf-docboard-owner at blender.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Bf-docboard digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Blender Manual: License (Ton Roosendaal)
> 2. Re: Blender Manual: License (Tobias Heinke)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:46:16 +0200
> From: Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org>
> Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] Blender Manual: License
> To: Blender Documentation Project <bf-docboard at blender.org>
> Message-ID: <0BA51F1E-22C6-4DC1-9106-28ECC3066DF8 at blender.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> I have to correct myself. The original license was not so permissive. It
> has a copyleft statement in it.
>
> The actual license description: (scroll down)
> https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/BlenderWiki:Copyrights
>
> It requires that you share modified works under the original license, but
> it has a confusing clause to identify portions for which it wouldn't need
> to be.
>
> This Open Content license is from 1998. The organization is not active
> anymore.
> http://opencontent.org/
>
> I will need to study this further. I don't mind contacting some older
> active contributors to ask permissions, but we're probably safer off to
> define with the current active team what license they prefer. And then just
> add exceptions for the older content.
>
> -Ton-
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
>
> > On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:46, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since 2002 we always choose to use a permissive license for docs,
> similar to CC-BY (or some other version of the "Open Content License". This
> permissive license makes it possible for others o use portions of our work
> in commercial products (books especially, publishers won't accept "SA" or
> copyleft).
> >
> > But! I noticed that someone added a default footer "this manual is CC0"
> on every page. I don't think that this is correct, especially not since not
> every author has agreed on this (older docs, screenshots, artwork). CC-BY
> 4.0 is much closer to the original open content license, especially because
> it more explicitly protects an author's name being abused.
> >
> > I cannot find a discussion or decision on making everything CC0 on this
> list. Were all authors contacted first? Was there an announcement I missed?
> >
> > Tobias further brings up a couple of very confusing issues. Licensing is
> a horrible complex topic. Let's not confuse everyone even more...
> >
> >> "Keep in mind that you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not
> own unless you have permission from the owner."
> >
> > The Creative Commons FAQ also explicitly states that you can make
> derivative works from others (work in Public Domain or copyrighted works)
> and apply the CC (0 BY SA etc) on the portion you created, provided you
> clearly notify this.
> >
> > There are lot of examples of this. Like someone modeling a Starwars ship
> and releasing it as CC0. The portion you did (the 3d model) is CC0, but the
> design itself (Millennium Falcon or so) is copyrighted. Or making a picture
> of Mickey Mouse in disney land. Photo can be licensed as CC0, but the
> characters you picture are not.
> > Same goes for personality rights, privacy and brands. A photo of myself
> licensed as CC0 doesn't mean I become CC0 myself. :)
> >
> > Conclusion: we need to reword our license description: "The contents of
> this page is CC (0, BY, whatever), unless indicated otherwise. Excluded
> from the CC are also the used logos, trademarks, icons, source code and
> python scripts".
> >
> >> And this has a moral dimension, because I see it as a human right that
> the creator is the owner of her unique work
> >
> > As an owner of your work you can decide to share it. You can do it in
> many ways, including as CC0. Let's not value such decisions as more or less
> moral. We just should try to agree on common shared interest.
> >
> >> (...) The millionaire can then add his signature in the corner and
> announce publicly to be greatest painter ever lived.
> >
> > That's quite absurd. The right to be named and mentioned as artist or
> creator (moral rights) is not optional and heavily protected by law in
> nearly every country. Check the CC0 FAQ from the commons here:
> >
> > https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ
> >
> > I hope we can avoid lengthy discussions on own interpretations on
> copyrights and quickly settle on the proper license to choose. And that
> decision we *first* need to get the current active contributors agree.
> >
> > -Ton-
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
> > Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
> > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
> >
> >> On 08 Apr 2016, at 20:14, Tobias Heinke <heinke.tobias at t-online.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> I propose to remove CC0 mark and to upgrade to CC BY-SA. It changes
> that a text passage has to be cited as a internet reference:
> >>
> >> "Blender documentation project, date, Blender manual 2.77, link"
> >>
> >> We can define a standard by a "How to cite this manual" page in the
> about section.
> >> The author could be the "Blender documentation project" collective. In
> theory someone can find out who is and was included in it.
> >> And it makes citation possible in the manual and in that way follow the
> scientific standard.
> >>
> >> "Keep in mind that you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not
> own unless you have permission from the owner."
> >> creative commons, 2016, CC0,
> https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/?lang=en
> >>
> >> This manual includes a lot of work with a license not compatible with
> CC0.
> >> Work of researchers, programmers, publishers and also Blender itself!
> >> GNU GPL is not compatible, because it's based on mentioning of the
> authors name.
> >>
> >> a list of licenses compatible with BY-SA;
> https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses/
> >> more info on compatibility:
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility
> >>
> >> i.e. the Blender icons - made by Andrzej Ambro? - featured in most of
> the UI screenshots.
> >> Of cause submitting work to Blender implicating that it can be used in
> the manual.
> >>
> >> And this has a moral dimension, because I see it as a human right that
> the creator is the owner of her unique work
> >> and is not allowed to waive of ownership (- that's why I'm passionate
> about that).
> >> If the beneficiary is a person or a incorporation it's obvious why it
> is evil.
> >> i.e. A millionaire can pay Picasso to draw him a painting licensed
> under CC0.
> >> The millionaire can then add his signature in the corner and
> announce publicly to be greatest painter ever lived.
> >> But if the public is the beneficiary no one gets hurt - right?
> >>
> >> CC0 is also limited by the legal framework the creator is operating in,
> making this fuzzy.
> >> i.e. the controversy between the german rights of use and copyright.
> >> There's the a difference between a tool (some parts of software) and an
> unique artwork (manual = literature).
> >> As literature copyright is applied making CC0 void by law. (I'm not a
> lawyer, so I can't proof this opinion)
> >>
> >> The question is, has these change an impact on other part of Blender?
> >> Shipping the manual with the software as a bundle? - as I remember Ton
> said on a BlenCon.
> >> But even if - We don't have a choice, but to upgrade!
> >>
> >> Yours sincerely,
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-docboard mailing list
> >> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-docboard mailing list
> > Bf-docboard at blender.org
> > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:12:54 +0200
> From: Tobias Heinke <heinke.tobias at t-online.de>
> Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] Blender Manual: License
> To: bf-docboard at blender.org, ton at blender.org
> Message-ID: <5708F1C6.1000803 at t-online.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hallo Ton,
>
> Then everything is fine.
> I thought this was a decision and not just a default value.
> btw. The license is set by this line in the config. file:
>
> manual > config.py > line 75
>
> Tobias
>
> Am 09.04.2016 um 12:46 schrieb Ton Roosendaal:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have to correct myself. The original license was not so permissive. It
> has a copyleft statement in it.
> >
> > The actual license description: (scroll down)
> > https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/BlenderWiki:Copyrights
> >
> > It requires that you share modified works under the original license,
> but it has a confusing clause to identify portions for which it wouldn't
> need to be.
> >
> > This Open Content license is from 1998. The organization is not active
> anymore.
> > http://opencontent.org/
> >
> > I will need to study this further. I don't mind contacting some older
> active contributors to ask permissions, but we're probably safer off to
> define with the current active team what license they prefer. And then just
> add exceptions for the older content.
> >
> > -Ton-
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
> > Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
> > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
> >
> >> On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:46, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since 2002 we always choose to use a permissive license for docs,
> similar to CC-BY (or some other version of the "Open Content License". This
> permissive license makes it possible for others o use portions of our work
> in commercial products (books especially, publishers won't accept "SA" or
> copyleft).
> >>
> >> But! I noticed that someone added a default footer "this manual is CC0"
> on every page. I don't think that this is correct, especially not since not
> every author has agreed on this (older docs, screenshots, artwork). CC-BY
> 4.0 is much closer to the original open content license, especially because
> it more explicitly protects an author's name being abused.
> >>
> >> I cannot find a discussion or decision on making everything CC0 on this
> list. Were all authors contacted first? Was there an announcement I missed?
> >>
> >> Tobias further brings up a couple of very confusing issues. Licensing
> is a horrible complex topic. Let's not confuse everyone even more...
> >>
> >>> "Keep in mind that you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not
> own unless you have permission from the owner."
> >> The Creative Commons FAQ also explicitly states that you can make
> derivative works from others (work in Public Domain or copyrighted works)
> and apply the CC (0 BY SA etc) on the portion you created, provided you
> clearly notify this.
> >>
> >> There are lot of examples of this. Like someone modeling a Starwars
> ship and releasing it as CC0. The portion you did (the 3d model) is CC0,
> but the design itself (Millennium Falcon or so) is copyrighted. Or making a
> picture of Mickey Mouse in disney land. Photo can be licensed as CC0, but
> the characters you picture are not.
> >> Same goes for personality rights, privacy and brands. A photo of myself
> licensed as CC0 doesn't mean I become CC0 myself. :)
> >>
> >> Conclusion: we need to reword our license description: "The contents of
> this page is CC (0, BY, whatever), unless indicated otherwise. Excluded
> from the CC are also the used logos, trademarks, icons, source code and
> python scripts".
> >>
> >>> And this has a moral dimension, because I see it as a human right that
> the creator is the owner of her unique work
> >> As an owner of your work you can decide to share it. You can do it in
> many ways, including as CC0. Let's not value such decisions as more or less
> moral. We just should try to agree on common shared interest.
> >>
> >>> (...) The millionaire can then add his signature in the corner and
> announce publicly to be greatest painter ever lived.
> >> That's quite absurd. The right to be named and mentioned as artist or
> creator (moral rights) is not optional and heavily protected by law in
> nearly every country. Check the CC0 FAQ from the commons here:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ
> >>
> >> I hope we can avoid lengthy discussions on own interpretations on
> copyrights and quickly settle on the proper license to choose. And that
> decision we *first* need to get the current active contributors agree.
> >>
> >> -Ton-
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
> >> Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
> >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
> >>
> >>> On 08 Apr 2016, at 20:14, Tobias Heinke <heinke.tobias at t-online.de>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everybody,
> >>>
> >>> I propose to remove CC0 mark and to upgrade to CC BY-SA. It changes
> that a text passage has to be cited as a internet reference:
> >>>
> >>> "Blender documentation project, date, Blender manual 2.77, link"
> >>>
> >>> We can define a standard by a "How to cite this manual" page in the
> about section.
> >>> The author could be the "Blender documentation project" collective. In
> theory someone can find out who is and was included in it.
> >>> And it makes citation possible in the manual and in that way follow
> the scientific standard.
> >>>
> >>> "Keep in mind that you cannot waive rights to a work that you do not
> own unless you have permission from the owner."
> >>> creative commons, 2016, CC0,
> https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/?lang=en
> >>>
> >>> This manual includes a lot of work with a license not compatible with
> CC0.
> >>> Work of researchers, programmers, publishers and also Blender itself!
> >>> GNU GPL is not compatible, because it's based on mentioning of the
> authors name.
> >>>
> >>> a list of licenses compatible with BY-SA;
> https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses/
> >>> more info on compatibility:
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility
> >>>
> >>> i.e. the Blender icons - made by Andrzej Ambro? - featured in most of
> the UI screenshots.
> >>> Of cause submitting work to Blender implicating that it can be used in
> the manual.
> >>>
> >>> And this has a moral dimension, because I see it as a human right that
> the creator is the owner of her unique work
> >>> and is not allowed to waive of ownership (- that's why I'm passionate
> about that).
> >>> If the beneficiary is a person or a incorporation it's obvious why it
> is evil.
> >>> i.e. A millionaire can pay Picasso to draw him a painting licensed
> under CC0.
> >>> The millionaire can then add his signature in the corner and
> announce publicly to be greatest painter ever lived.
> >>> But if the public is the beneficiary no one gets hurt - right?
> >>>
> >>> CC0 is also limited by the legal framework the creator is operating
> in, making this fuzzy.
> >>> i.e. the controversy between the german rights of use and copyright.
> >>> There's the a difference between a tool (some parts of software) and
> an unique artwork (manual = literature).
> >>> As literature copyright is applied making CC0 void by law. (I'm not a
> lawyer, so I can't proof this opinion)
> >>>
> >>> The question is, has these change an impact on other part of Blender?
> >>> Shipping the manual with the software as a bundle? - as I remember Ton
> said on a BlenCon.
> >>> But even if - We don't have a choice, but to upgrade!
> >>>
> >>> Yours sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Tobias
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Bf-docboard mailing list
> >>> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-docboard mailing list
> >> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-docboard mailing list
> > Bf-docboard at blender.org
> > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
>
> End of Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 134, Issue 6
> *******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20160410/a3d905eb/attachment.htm
More information about the Bf-docboard
mailing list