[00:00] <tyche> greg-g: The text listed is actually MORE restrictive than the license actually is, so the post is still protected.  And no, it's more like saying "I use Linux" and having the link go to Ubuntu.com
[00:00] <greg-g> tyche: CC:BY is LESS restrictiv than BY-SA
[00:01] <tyche> No, it's MORE restrictive.  BY means that you HAVE to attribute the post to the original author.  SA means that you are PERMITTED to share-alike.
[00:02] <greg-g> tyche: actually not.
[00:02] <greg-g> Creative Comons is my employer
[00:02] <greg-g> BY is the least restictive license
[00:03] <greg-g> you still HAVE to attribute the post if it is under BY-SA
[00:03] <tyche> Yea, and I've been studying Copyright in conjunction to the TSCOG fiasco for the past 4 1/2 years.
[00:03] <greg-g> Attribution is the thing which is required in ALL CC licenses.
[00:03] <tyche> However, If you want to call johnc4510 out on it, feel free.
[00:04] <greg-g> tyche: sorry if you feel that I am calling John out on it, I am just saying that what he is saying and what he is linking to is differnt, and why not have those be the same.
[00:06] <tyche> "
[00:06] <tyche> "Authors can either not restrict modification, or use Share-alike (sa), which is a copyleft requirement that requires that any derived works be licensed under the same license, or No derivatives (nd), which requires that the work not be modified.." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
[00:07] <greg-g> tyche: I'm not going to argue what the CC licenses mean with you. Especially if you wikipedia as opposed to the actual text of the license.
[00:07] <tyche> BTW, CC even SAYS to go to the wikipedia link for further information
[00:07] <greg-g> use the legal text, _that_ is what matters
[00:07] <greg-g> and where does CC say that?
[00:07] <snap-l> IIRC, CC licenses are pretty much all By Attribution
[00:08] <tyche> From the license:  'Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.'
[00:08] <snap-l> the only ones that aren't are not CC, they're GPL
[00:08] <greg-g> tyche: right, in addition to attributing it to the original author
[00:08] <snap-l> The only differences are whether or not there's commercial or share alike
[00:09] <tyche> greg-g: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Main_Page, bottom of the page
[00:09] <greg-g> snap-l: right (or NoDerivs, too)
[00:09] <tyche> "Also Visit Creative Commons Wikipedia Pages in Your Language"
[00:09] <snap-l> The only alternatives for no attribution are GPL or PD and their variants.
[00:10] <greg-g> tyche: that doesn't mean "take wikipedia as legal advice"
[00:10] <greg-g> that just means "here are some other pages that talk about CC"
[00:11] <tyche> yep.  But considering that CC makes the suggestion and the links, it adds credance to them
[00:11] <snap-l> Christ, using Wikipedia for Legal advice is akin to doing brain surgery from Grey's Anatomy (the book, not the show)
[00:12] <greg-g> tyche: what it means is "hey, if you can't read this page becase you speak a different language, go here to learn about CC in your native language"
[00:12] <greg-g> we are not saying "wikipedia is the place to get your answers regarding CC"
[00:13] <greg-g> and even if it did, you are misunderstanding a very vital point of all the CC licenses, they _all_ require attribution and BY-SA is _more_ restrictive than BY (just like the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license)
[00:13] <tyche> BTW, at the bottom of the CC wiki page, I see a nice little symbol and some text.  The text reads: "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"
[00:13] <tyche> The symbol and the link are to CC-BY
[00:14] <greg-g> yes, so they match
[00:14] <greg-g> john says the same thing but links to the BY-SA license
[00:14] <tyche> The text does NOT say BY
[00:14] <greg-g> "BY" is shorthand for "Attribution"
[00:15] <greg-g> look at this link, and the text on the page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
[00:15] <tyche> Yes, I know that.  And it's on the symbol.  But NOT in the text.
[00:15] <greg-g> what?
[00:15] <snap-l> http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/
[00:15] <snap-l> 4.Restrictions:
[00:16] <greg-g> tyche: BY = attribution, SA = shareAlke, NC = NonCommercial, ND = NoDerivative
[00:16] <snap-l> Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii)
[00:16] <snap-l> That's 4B under BY.
[00:17] <tyche> On that same link, see "Share Alike":  "You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work."  The word "allow" is a permission, not a restriction.
[00:17] <snap-l> by-sa: 4b
[00:17] <greg-g> tyche: you're reading it wrong.
[00:17] <tyche> That's what the text says.
[00:17] <greg-g> the key word there is "only"
[00:18] <greg-g> tyche: if you don't believe me, go to #CC and ask which is more restrictive, BY or By-SA
[00:18] <snap-l> Every single license that's CC has the restriction under 4B about By Attribution
[00:19] <snap-l> Attribution is a given restriction. Share Alike is permission to share. Non-commercial is a restriction. No Derivs is also a restriction
[00:19] <greg-g> snap-l: sort-of
[00:19] <snap-l> Share-Alike is the only one that provides explicit permission
[00:20] <greg-g> BY-SA means if you use the work, anything created using it MUST be licensed under BY-SA
[00:20] <tyche> Of course, the BY is in all of them.  But the "Share Alike" is a permission, not a restriction.  It allows you to do certain things as long as certain requirements are met (attribution and same license used)
[00:20] <snap-l> Right right
[00:20] <snap-l> BY allows you to do whatever as long as you atribute the original authot
[00:20] <snap-l> author
[00:20] <greg-g> right, which is more restrictive than only BY, because I can use your BY-only licensed work in my book and re-license it All Rights reserved
[00:21] <greg-g> either way, none of this matters for the issue at hand: what the blog post says and what it links to are different, why not make them match?
[00:21] <greg-g> and, I have to go
[00:21] <greg-g> take care
[00:21] <greg-g> love the work (really do)
[18:08] <Pici> I'm working on a supybot plugin that will use gdata to read google calendars.  Would it be correct to say that every event will always have the channel name in the location field for each event? Perferable as the first word?
[18:10] <james_w> not every event will be in a channel I expect
[18:11] <Pici> Well, events that are in channels.
[18:11] <Pici> I just looked at a few more events, I may just grab the first word that starts with a hash instead.
[22:04] <boredandblogging> Pici: ping