[01:54] o/ [01:54] hey greg-g [01:54] thanks for stopping in [01:55] We have some questions concerning CC and ownership [01:55] pleia2, bodhizazen [01:55] ready when you are [01:55] oh [01:55] or we can do it now :) [01:56] hehe [01:56] First item... [01:56] is there a way for the UCLP to 'own' the copyright (CC) on the product of a course author? [01:57] and in your opinion is such ownership, if possible, necessary and/or desirable? [01:57] yes, you can have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project, similar to how FSF does with code contributions [01:58] well, as long as they all agree to having their contributions licensed as CC:BY-SA then you can do what you want with it, as long as you include their name in an AUTHORS file or similar [01:58] does UCLP have to be a legal entity? [01:58] it might [01:58] I am not a lawyer and all that [01:58] ah... I thought you were... [01:59] but, wikipedia (which is a good example for such a project) just has the contributors agree to licensing their contributions as CC:BY-SA [01:59] :) [01:59] Well... I am under the impression that if an author licenses under CC:BY-SA they still OWN the work [02:00] where as if UCLP 'owns' the work the author would not license it under CC:BY-SA [02:00] but UCLP would... [02:00] I would prefer if we did that [02:00] thus the author would not be give attribution unless the UCLP wanted to do so [02:00] have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project [02:00] it would not legally be required [02:00] it woudl make things a whole lot easier [02:01] cprofitt: correct, they still "own" their work, but it is licensed as BY-SA so you can do what you want with it (excluding re-licensing it) [02:01] I understand that... [02:01] but if they transfer ownership, which some would like them to do, ... [02:02] then you can do whatever you want with it [02:02] :) [02:02] then they are no longer the licensor - and they would not legally have to be given attribution if logic follows [02:02] correct, you would just have attribution be "UCLP" or whatever [02:02] so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work [02:02] ok... [02:02] correct. [02:02] that is what I thought [02:02] so... were you joking about not being a lawyer... or do I still really need to seek out a copyright lawyer [02:02] these are good questions, btw. I like this. [02:03] correct what , lol =) [02:03] bodhizazen: correct to "21:02 < cprofitt> so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work" [02:03] :) [02:03] thanks [02:04] I am advocating the UCLP as that from contributing authors [02:04] I'm not a lawyer, and you don't _need_ to get legal counsel, but if you want you can. I can give you my personal opinion though [02:04] if they do CC:BY-SA they would not be able to revoke our right to use the content or would they? [02:04] cprofitt: nope, they can't revoke the license [02:04] I think that's plenty then [02:04] that is also what I thought [02:04] s/nope/correct/ #for clarity [02:04] no need to "own" it [02:05] so we really have no need to 'own' it [02:05] and that makes the question of the UCLP needing to become a 'legal entity' unnecessary [02:05] * pleia2 nods [02:05] now... [02:05] for using NC or not using NC... [02:05] You had related some reservations on using NC... [02:06] can you cover those again for the benefit of bodhizazen, pleia2 and myself [02:06] correct, you don't. Other than to make attribution easier. Which could be done with a simple check box also (I acknowledge that attribution for this material will be "UCLP" and not my individual name") [02:06] wait, are we going to use such a check box ? [02:06] sure, simple answer is: It creates confusiong on how others can use your work and it is not considered a "Free" (Big F) license. [02:07] bodhizazen, we may use a checkbox, but only for an agreement that they are publishing their work CC:BY** [02:07] bodhizazen: I'm just giving more suggestions than you all are asking for :) [02:07] why would we not ask them to assign copyrights over to the UCLP ? [02:08] bodhizazen: for one, we're not a legal entity (might have to be) [02:08] bodhizazen, because there is NO need to do so [02:08] I really don't see the benefits of it, and see contributors being reluctant to sign over copyright [02:08] bodhizazen: some people don't like that idea and what pleia2 just said (because I don't know the legal answer to that question) [02:09] OK, then if we do not do that we need to make dam sure we have the rights to use the content if we choose if said author "demands" we remove content =) [02:10] bodhizazen, if they publish on our site and agree (via check box) to publish their work via CC:BY-SA we would have those rights [02:10] bodhizazen: greg-g confirmed that they can't revoke the CC:BY-SA license [02:10] what happens if author foo asks for his or her name to be removed from the UCLP and all of foo's contributions as well ? [02:10] they can't [02:10] I asked the can they force us to remove it and greg-g said they can not do so [02:10] it's already CC:BY-SA [02:10] which is how I understand GPL and CC to work [02:10] Well, I am not wanting to pay the legal defense if the UCLP is sued =) [02:10] bodhizazen: they can ask, and you can choose to comply or not, as they have already released their contributions under a CC:BY*** license. [02:11] the items you published as CC or GPL can not be removed from that license [02:11] right ^^ [02:11] And i am concerned as I own the server [02:11] so I do not want to be left on the ship when the $h*t hits the fan and the rats leave =) [02:11] ownership doesn't help, it causes us to have more legal responsibilities and work and we may lose contributors [02:12] well, you would be considered a "service provider" under the DMCA and all you would have to do is remove the "infringing" content if they were _actually_ going to take you to court (which if they did, they would lose) [02:12] I am not talking ownership =) [02:12] as for legal defense... regardless of what a person did or not... [02:12] I am talking copyright [02:12] * cprofitt sigh [02:12] bodhizazen: right, see my last comment about the DMCA [02:12] they would be publishing under CC:BY-SA [02:12] thank you [02:12] np [02:13] that would be the copyright... [02:13] so, what you are saying is they could threaten a law suit [02:13] but they would be wrong [02:13] ownership of that copyright would be theirs [02:13] anyone can threaten anything [02:13] and we would then need to decide to [02:13] 1. remove content [02:13] 2,. mount a defense [02:13] which they could do even if they 'assigned' ownership [02:13] you risk this by putting anything online ever, anyone can accuse you of anything [02:13] bodhizazen: a "defense" would include suggesting to them they ask for legal advice, then a lawyer will tell them they have no case [02:13] yes, but even if we win we still need to defend [02:14] if you really want to protect yourself you should 503c UCLP [02:14] That may be a very good idea cprofitt ;) [02:14] it's really not [02:14] regardless of how we ask them to copyright or assign ownership a person can dispute things... [02:15] I understand that [02:15] the only way to legally protect yourself is to setup a corporation of some sort [02:15] and have that bear the burden [02:15] but I see asking them to assign copyright to teh UCLP as productive [02:15] it would pay the bills for the server, domain name and bandwidth etc [02:15] it seems many successful projects do that [02:16] assigning of copyright is assigning of ownership [02:16] cprofitt: if we incorporated we couldn't use the Ubuntu name, or domain [02:16] is that not what the wiki does ? [02:16] and affords no legal protection from frivolous lawsuits [02:16] no pleia2 [02:16] pleia2, incorrect [02:17] the UCLP corporation can call itself anything it wants =) [02:17] bodhi could incorporate but not use the ubuntu name [02:17] Canonical allows usage of the Ubuntu name by other corporations? [02:17] and then the corporation can be the entity providing the resources to UCLP [02:17] its a legal slip knot [02:17] It could be called bodhi's insuracne that he does not loose his shirt LLC =) [02:17] ah [02:18] they do not allow other corps to use it... but bodhi would not be the entity donating the resources [02:18] It is easy to form a LLC [02:18] its creating a shadow company... [02:18] I do not understand why we, the UCLP is doing something different from say wiki team [02:19] from my understanding Canonical claims copyright on materials published on the wiki =) [02:19] so why do we not want to do the same ? [02:20] It has not stopped the wiki from being a success [02:20] bodhizazen, I think you are incorrect [02:20] they make several exceptions [02:20] link cprofitt ? [02:21] we can make similar exceptions, no ? [02:21] 1) We have no link to a copyright that directly makes a claim about the wiki directly [02:21] The make exceptions for content that is published elsewhere [02:21] the information we have is on www not wiki [02:22] perhaps we should wait for an opinion from legal ie dinda :) [02:22] greg-g, do you have any input on how canonical licenses user contributed content on the wiki? [02:22] the legal from dinda only has to do with the inclusion of NC or not [02:22] not the assignment of ownership [02:23] cprofitt: lemme double check on thing... [02:23] I would also point out, as the server's owner, I think it is fair I ask to be comfortable with the copyright agreement :) [02:23] thanks [02:24] Unless others wish to contribute and assume what I perceive as risk =) [02:24] bodhizazen, I would agree... but as a potential author I would say we also do not want an environment that stifles author contributions by unnecessarily asks them to relinquish their rights [02:24] asking [02:24] I do not see that as stifling =) [02:24] cprofitt: so, wiki.u.c only says "© 2008 Canonical Ltd." which I'm not sure is even correct. I don't remember saying anything when I signed up for a wiki account about assigning my contributions to Canonical. [02:25] wikipedia has similar agreements and is not stifled [02:25] wikipedia? [02:25] bodhizazen: similar agreements to what? [02:25] greg-g yes, you can have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project, similar to how FSF does with code contributions [02:25] greg-g, that is what I thought... Canonical has not asked me to sign any agreement to relinquish my ownership [02:25] what is wrong with that ^^ [02:26] if it is good enough for FSF it is good enough for me [02:26] bodhizazen: that isn't what Wikipedia does (to the best of my knowledge) [02:26] FSF then =) [02:26] heh, ok [02:26] publishing under CC:BY-SA-NC and asking them to give up ownership is much further than the FSF would ever go [02:26] cprofitt: right, I should ping dinda about that [02:26] the FSF would never force NC [02:26] but greg-g informed us that is exactly what the FSF does [02:27] the FSF does not publish under NC [02:27] they allow commercial use [02:27] Stallman would kill them if they prohibited commercial use [02:27] they ask people to sign away copyright +) [02:27] that they do... [02:27] which is what we are discussing [02:27] but they do NOT publish under NC [02:28] the NC is a separate issue [02:28] there are other reasons that FSF asks for ownership, to my knowledge, and we have none of them [02:28] and one we are waiting on to hear from on [02:28] bodhizazen, for me the two issues are not sep. [02:29] I would not sign over my rights to an organization that was going to publish under a restrictive license [02:29] so for me the two are linked [02:29] the reason the FSF asks for ownership is so they can relicense under a newer version of the GPL when they are released [02:29] Well, as I do not know where we are going with NC as of yet [02:29] what can I say ? [02:30] and they take on defense as well if I am not mistaken greg-g [02:31] The reason I want to take on ownership is because I do not want to be involved in a lawsuit =) [02:31] which they could not do if they were not the owner [02:31] cprofitt: yeah, and that too [02:31] which is the reverse of why the FSF does bodhizazen [02:31] they WANT to defend GPL license code [02:31] they do not want to avoid a legal fight [02:31] yea, well our goal / reasons for wanting copyright differ =) [02:31] your seeking to avoid a legal issue is not solved by the assignment of ownership [02:32] I am not looking for "solved" [02:32] there is no such thing [02:32] so asking for it is disingenuous or misguides based on what I know [02:32] I am looking for as good as it can be =) [02:33] I do not want the headaches of having an author demand we remove content [02:33] good as it can be for you is CC:BY-* with the author retaining ownership of the copyright [02:34] and we then have to remove content because we do not have copyrights [02:34] them transferring it to UCLP or a shadow LLC does not mitigate the risk of a legal battle any further [02:34] sigh [02:34] I don't want to sound like I'm giving legal advice, but asking for copyright assignment actually does increase your liability for the content. Simply hosting the content is protected under the DMCA (as long as you respond to a take down notice if it is valid). AND, any contribution will be licensed under a CC:BY-SA license so the whole issue is kinda moot. [02:34] I understand that even if we have the copy right it does not stop someone , but it makes their case that much more difficult [02:34] they can dispute the copyright assignment and make the same demands [02:34] both demands would be equally baseless [02:35] thanks greg-g :) [02:35] bodhizazen, it makes their case no more difficult... [02:35] do you have a link ? [02:35] their cases are equally faulty [02:35] in whose opinion cprofitt ? [02:35] bodhizazen: me or cprofitt ? and a link to what? [02:35] your greg [02:36] bodhizazen, in my opinion [02:36] If the work is licensed under a CC license (sans NC) you can host it on your site. Period. [02:37] while it is only my opinion... I would encourage you to seek legal advice if you feel the need [02:37] Well, therein lies a potential problem [02:37] we may or may not need to go -NC [02:37] greg-g: to confirm I understand correctly - if I write a course that ends up on UCLP and UCLP requires me to transfer ownership and make it NC, that means I can't sell it to some linux magazine later, since I wrote off all my rights to my work? [02:37] we are waiting for a legal opinion [02:37] the only reason I say sans NC is because NC create ambiguity with what the definition of "commericial" is. [02:37] and once we get an opinion we will need to discuss it [02:37] I would think that before pushing for a potentially odorous assignment of license that you would want to ensure your opinion, which is no more or less valid than mine, is accurate [02:37] we have not asked for legal opinion on ownership [02:38] er, I meant copyright [02:38] pleia2: wrong actually. CC license are non-exclusive. You can release it under a CC:BY-NC-SA on UCLP and as CC:BY on your own blog. [02:38] cprofitt: you are going in circles =) [02:38] greg-g: ah ok [02:38] We asked a legal opinion on -NC [02:38] bodhizazen, I am not going in circles... though you might perceive it as such [02:38] I can try to clarify [02:38] pleia2: as long as you release it on your blog before you transfer ownership, that is. :) [02:38] which will impact ownership [02:38] yes we asked for legal opinion on NC [02:39] greg-g: hm, troublesome! [02:39] you are pushing for ownership [02:39] which I feel there is no need for [02:39] ownership transfer is generally a "no no" Only when you are working for a company do they really ask you to do that. [02:39] I would ask that before we pursue a course that asks people to relinquish their rights that we verify that there is an actual benefit to the project for doing so [02:40] cprofitt: +1 [02:40] you have used references to other projects that do that... but you do not have the same reasons... [02:40] well your feelings on the issue do not invalidate the feelings of others, or mine =) [02:40] your reason is for your own legal protection [02:40] and that may or may not have any benefit from copyright ownership [02:40] Well that is a reality if it is my server =) [02:40] if you do not gain any benefit then there is no reason to pursue it [02:40] unless you have other reasons you have not shared with us [02:40] now if the UCLP would like to purchase a VPS .... [02:41] you are free to withdraw your donation of resources from the UCLP if you feel you must [02:41] I am not trying to be difficult here [02:41] but the UCLP does not have to do as you say just because you contributed them to the project [02:42] but I am trying to understand and be comfortable with these decisions [02:42] and you can not claim to have an unbiased opinion either cprofitt +) [02:42] I would like to make sure you feel you are properly protected, but at the same time not push requirements that do not add to that legal protection [02:43] I would like to see this issue discussed more [02:43] that may also impact the willingness of others to contribute [02:43] we can discuss it. [02:43] I I hope you are open to the thoughts and opinions of the group [02:43] that is not such a great arguement cprofitt [02:43] and in a manner that does not carry an implied threat of taking your ball and going home [02:44] the UCLP needs to make a decision on these issues and I am sure we will have disagreements [02:44] if the assignment of copyright aids in protecting you and your family I would have no issue with it. [02:44] and we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical [02:44] which may either make the discussion moot [02:44] or complicate it =) [02:44] if it does not have any value to such protection then I would not be for it for the reasons you have expressed [02:45] we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical on NC [02:45] And if canonnoical required -NC [02:45] their desire for its use or not [02:45] what then ? [02:45] if Canonical requires NC that makes your desire for transfer of ownership more troublesome in my opinion [02:45] Are you then going to pull out of the project because you do not get the license you want ? [02:46] what about others ? === pleia2 changed the topic of #ubuntu-learning to: Ubuntu Community Learning Project | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning | Next Meeting: Monday June 22nd @ 7pm EDT (23:00 UTC June 22nd) | Support in #ubuntu [02:46] Well you are entitled to your opinion [02:46] it is my opinion that such ownership is not necessary for your protection from legal action, but for your benefit that should be examined [02:46] and I am entitled to mine =) [02:46] are you going to pull out because you do not get the one you want? [02:46] I have expressed an opinion about which license I feel is best... [02:47] not the one I want [02:47] despite your accusation that I have some hidden interest - I do not have a personal interest. [02:47] there are many who have a strong opinion on this issue [02:47] there may be... [02:47] but let me ask you bluntly... [02:47] thus the issue needs to be reviewed and discussed [02:48] bodhizazen: I won't pull out of the project if we require NC and ownership, but I will not contribute my own work to the courses because it's very unfree and I'm uncomfortable with that [02:48] if you were to receive legal council that a transfer of copyright ownership had no value in protecting you from litigation over an author agreeing to CC:BY-* would you agree to not pursue copyright ownership for UCLP? [02:48] That [02:49] and I want to see some structure in place for how to resolve potential conflicts on content [02:49] if you were to receive legal council that a transfer of copyright ownership had no value in protecting you from litigation over an author agreeing to CC:BY-* would you agree to not pursue copyright ownership for UCLP? [02:49] developed by the UCLP [02:49] we have a structure -- though it needs to be stronger [02:49] we have a board currently [02:50] that and we need to have some structure [02:50] it may not be as strong as you like, but we do have a structure [02:50] Well, there has been sharp disagreement even on the governing board on this issue [02:50] I would like an answer to the question [02:50] boards can have disagreements [02:50] To be honest I am not sure what will happen if we are requested to go -NC [02:51] what about the transfer of ownership question bodhizazen [02:51] if you gain no additional legal protection would you still push for it? [02:51] if there are other reasons I would like to be able to consider those [02:51] My interests, as the owner of the server, are to divorce myself from as many legal hassles as possible =) [02:52] That is not the same as saying I am unwilling to assume some risk [02:52] I understand that... [02:52] or that I am pulling the server =) [02:52] My interests as a UCLP member are to see these issues resolved amicably [02:53] to be clear though if transferring of ownership afford you no more protection from risk than the author publishing under CC:BY-* would you still push for a transfer of ownership [02:53] I want you to be protected... [02:53] and we have a different understanding of what protects you so that needs to be resolved via legal advice - not from Canonical [02:53] I think not cprofitt , however ... [02:54] I do not think I understand what will happen if we are requested to go -NC [02:54] what is your question in that regard? [02:55] Well there will be a problem [02:55] I am still under the opinion that if we are asked to use NC that ownership would not help you... [02:55] as some people are not happy with the potential for -NC [02:55] it in fact could hurt you... [02:55] It could [02:55] as you would be the entity that would have to defend it [02:55] I am not sure =) [02:56] if the author still owned the copyright they would have to defend it... or pursue the entity using it commercially [02:56] the use of NC can be overcome, IMHO, if we do not ask for a transfer of ownership [02:56] greg-g, are you still with us [02:57] My other question is - [02:57] what does the rest of the Ubuntu Community do with licensing ? [02:57] let me clarify... though I would want another opinion... [02:58] cprofitt: I can be< iwas letting you all work through that stuff [02:58] we look to the community for so much, why are we not looking at how the wiki does this ? [02:58] I think wiki is probably closest to us [02:58] if we publish using NC but the author retains copyright... they could use their contribution for commercial gain [02:58] but not those of others... [02:59] bodhizazen, I would love to know how the wiki handles user submissions, but there is no clear evidence of what they do [02:59] I know the answer - but all the same [02:59] cprofitt: correct re: NC and author retained copyright [02:59] greg-g, thanks... that is what I thought [02:59] why are we arguing this if we have not know how wiki does it =) [02:59] bodhizazen, you know the answer to how the wiki licenses contributions? [03:00] no, lol [03:00] because we have to consider the license regardless of how the wiki does it... [03:00] wish I did though [03:00] it may guide us, but does not alter the fact that we have to make a decision [03:01] we do know how wikipedia does it though [03:01] I really hav to get some work done and once again I think we made as much progress for one session as we are going to [03:01] I appreciate the information and perspective I have been given [03:02] link for wikipedia ? [03:02] Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. [03:02] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page [03:02] bottom of page [03:03] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License [03:03] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use [03:04] bodhizazen, to be clear... what conflict of interest do you feel I have? [03:06] I am concerned, from comments made and strong opinions, that people intend to personally profit from this project [03:06] that was not a goal of the Project =) [03:06] and I am not sure I am completely comfortable with it [03:07] I think people are just concern about giving up their rights [03:07] concerned [03:07] but the do give up rights =) [03:07] I have no ambition to personally profit from the project, but I see no reason - at this time - to limit that possibility for people [03:08] bodhizazen, if they hold the copyright they do not give up their rights [03:08] we are asking them to give up the right to dictate how we use their contributions [03:08] yes, they give up *some* rights, but not all [03:08] no, we are asking them to accept our use as CC:BY-SA [03:08] But if they publish on our server we are not giving them the right to remove their content ? [03:08] or are we ? [03:08] but they would retain their rights [03:09] no, we would not be giving them the right to remove the content [03:09] but they would choose to publish CC:BY-SA [03:09] so they are loosing some rights then =) [03:09] of course some, but not all [03:09] some I will agree... [03:09] but if they transfer ownership they lose all [03:09] * pleia2 nods [03:10] and some people will not like it if we need to go -NC ? [03:11] I think a good example would be a training firm that wrote a course, they might be willing to relicense it to us as NC as long as they retain copyright, so they can continue using it at their training facility [03:12] they make an exception for themselves, which they can do since they have copyright [03:12] pleia2 bodhizazen: I won't pull out of the project if we require NC and ownership, but I will not contribute my own work to the courses because it's very unfree and I'm uncomfortable with that [03:12] right, I won't contribute if I'm required to make it NC and give up copyright [03:12] that doesn't mean I *intend* to sell any of it [03:13] but I want the flexibility to if I choose, I don't want to sign off all my rights to it [03:14] greg-g still there [03:14] I have another - thought [03:14] go ahead [03:15] if the content is published under -NC [03:15] one can not charge for it [03:15] similar to the source code of Linux [03:15] but could one give the 'content' away but charge for their consulting to help deliver the content [03:16] uhhhh, correct on the first part, wrong on the source code of linux (GPL does not prohibit selling, youjust need to give them the source with it) [03:16] similar to the way RedHat and Canonical sell 'support'? [03:16] cprofitt: certainly re: consulting [03:16] +1 greg-g [03:16] so by going -NC we are really not preventing people from profiting from the material [03:16] I think that is a very very common misunderstanding [03:16] we are just prohibiting them from selling the content [03:17] well, yes and no [03:17] expand please [03:17] this is why NC sucks, because it is up to intrerpretation of the copyright holder/user [03:18] if I put your -NC stuff on my blog, but my blog has ads, is that a violation? some say yes, some say no [03:19] blatent violations, like selling a bound book of -NC texts, is obvious, but there are many grey areas. [03:20] perhaps we should consider the GFDL [03:20] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [03:21] I understand greg-g [03:21] so NC would really complicate things for us... [03:22] no, I suggest CC:BY-SA as that is the most commonly used license for documentation and other wiki-style projects [03:22]