[FM Discuss] Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 27

Mon Aug 23 08:23:46 PDT 2010

Hi, Adam -

I like the dual-licensing scenario - I think that will work for our team.

Much of this is just the real-time education process taking its course - 
neither artist were familiar with these licenses until last week.

Regards,

Rebecca Malamud

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:11:43 +0200
> From: adam <adam at xs4all.nl>
> To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> Subject: Re: [FM Discuss] Final Image Licensing for "E-Book
> 	Enlightenment"
> Message-ID: <1282324303.1728.319.camel at esetera>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> hey,
>
> Good work on the cover. Looks good :)
>
> as for the license issues....weeeeeell.....im sorry if I may appear
> overly 'whatever' with regard to this question - its only because i dont
> believe in copyright even though i know it exists, and i also dont think
> there is any such thing as a 'free license' since none of them make
> content 'free' they all act as jails for content in various ways.
>
> so...with that apology aside. i will try to answer your points in some
> way which I hope meets your needs.
>
>
>   
>> 1. Can the images used on the cover have a different license than the 
>> interior illustrations (let's say GPLII for the cover to support the 
>> precedent at FLOSS Manuals, and perhaps Creative Commons cc by-nc-sa and 
>> cc by-nc-nd on the interior)? We thought it might be interesting to link 
>> to CC licenses within the text on the FM site if it is agreeable with 
>> the author and the FM team.
>>
>>     
>
> so, NC is not free. and thats a bit of an ideological problem. Is there
> really someone on your team that needs this NC? its really a horrible
> license requirement and exists, in my opinion, only so that people who
> dont understand what free is (ie. publishers) to feel like they are
> being cool and free, when they arent. BY-SA, BY, or CC-O is better if
> you want to use CC licenses. NC is a 'feel good' requirement which is
> just smoke and mirrors.
>
> On the topic of CC - if its a show stopper for you to use GPL then by
> all means use CC, however if you do this the content cannot be used by
> any other existing manuals _including_ the current OLPC manuals which
> are all GPL. I would prefer, if you want to go down this road, to dual
> license with the GPL. That legally doesnt help actually, but we can at
> least fudge it a bit and pretend we dont know the legal ramifications of
> dual licensing material while copying the content 'in good faith'.
>
>   
>> 2. Can the images be released as GPLII for the 72dpi/600px versions used 
>> by FLOSS Manuals, yet something different for the full resolution 
>> versions? What if the artist wanted to make a poster or something along 
>> those lines with the full resolution images?
>>
>>     
>
> technically this is problematic, as in we dont have a technical way to
> manage this. So I would have to say no we cant do it. But maybe i dont
> get your point - I dont understand why you need the license to be
> different inorder to make a poster from it...maybe you can explain that
> a bit more.
>
>   
>> 3. Will Booki support per-object licensing in the future, or will the 
>> license always apply to the entire book?
>>
>>     
>
> well...you have to remember that per-object licensing is a nightmare.
> That introduces all sorts of crazy scenarios - what objects can fit with
> what objects? Ugh...I dont ever want to go down that path. Even dealing
> with this on a per-chapter basis is pretty crazy and soon becomes
> non-sensical and totally unmanageable.
>
> sorry, i dont mean to dismiss your question, i just cant see how we can
> make this work and i really dont want to even think about it.
>
> our dev principles and our usability principles have been 'keep it
> simple'. to do this we have to throw away a whole lot of complicated
> problems and reduce them to a pragmatic working environment. hence we
> license on a per-book basis. there might be some scope at a later date
> to introduce per-chapter licensing but that is about as granular as i
> would ever hope we would go. 
>
> on the other hand, what i would like to see in Booki is a nice way to
> request that content be relicensed. Perhaps by clicking on the credits
> list for a chapter and then a 'can i relicense this please' message gets
> sent to the rights holder who can then reply personally or have
> automated instant replies to specific requests (ie relicensing to
> specific licences would auto respond with a 'yes' or 'no) 
>
> but thats another story...(although not entirely unrelated)
>
>   
>> Many of these questions are raised out of the course of our internal 
>> collaborative process (for instance, the artist has created images that 
>> the book designer may not use, but we are still contemplating releasing 
>> them through our RDC site).
>>
>> Rest assured, we have no shortage of creativity or curiosity at #rdcHQ! 
>>   :-)
>>
>>     
>
> ok. I would hope you could communicate to everyone that their content is
> important to others - let the world have access to it, and dont get too
> caught up in license issues. Its not the point and it just stops good
> content from getting to the people that want it...
>
> sorry again, i just cant take copyright and its ridiculous consequences
> seriously....I hope you can convince your team to ease up a little on
> the license issue and just go with what we currently use. keeping it
> like this or dual licensing with CC would be the easiest way for all to
> go
>
> adam
>
>
>
>   
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Rebecca Malamud
>> ---------------------------------------
>> http://ruraldesigncollective.org 
>> (KICKSTARTER funded as of 08/19 - YES!)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
>> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>>     