[05:13] <pieter2627> jolly good morning all
[08:07] <magespawn> good morning
[09:36] <magespawn> does the copyright on a website cover the html/css/js or other code? php? 
[09:37] <stickyboy> magespawn: Good question.
[09:37] <stickyboy> I think each file is supposed to have a copyright in its header technically.
[09:37] <stickyboy> Because of the obvious ambiguity.
[09:39] <magespawn> yes, so if you are a developer could you develope a website for somebody else and retain copyright on the code, and leave the content copyright with the site owner or a third party?
[09:40] <magespawn> any ip lawyers in the house?
[09:40] <thatgraemeguy> speak to a lawyer for legal advice
[09:42] <magespawn> thatgraemeguy: they usually charge for any advice, which is to be expected, just thought i would ask the question, see if anyone had experience or thoughts
[09:42] <stickyboy> magespawn: Well, even if it's not a website, you are supposed to have copyright headers at the top of your source files.
[09:42] <stickyboy> main.c  etc...
[09:42] <thatgraemeguy> see i'd disagree, because copyright doesn't need to be declared
[09:43] <stickyboy> thatgraemeguy: Have you read the GPL? :)
[09:43] <thatgraemeguy> and that's exactly why legal advice should never be sought on a random gathering of random people :)
[09:43] <magespawn> so any programming should have the copyright licence notice, GPL or other, included?
[09:43] <stickyboy> thatgraemeguy: Sure, we're not lawyers, but it's useful to have a discussion, surely.
[09:43] <thatgraemeguy> ok, enjoy
[09:43] <stickyboy> magespawn: Hold on a minute, we're not giving you the absolute truth here.
[09:44] <stickyboy> First, read the license.
[09:44] <stickyboy> I have read the GPLv2 license.
[09:44] <stickyboy> I successfully shamed a Kenyan hardware company to release their source code.
[09:44] <magespawn> so you should obey the rules of the licence you use
[09:44] <stickyboy> https://mjanja.ch/2015/05/brck-in-violation-of-the-gpl/
[09:44] <magespawn> i remember stickyboy 
[09:44] <thatgraemeguy> is it useful to have a discussion when not a single one of the discussion participants is a domain expert?
[09:45] <stickyboy> thatgraemeguy: I don't work in absolutes.
[09:45] <stickyboy> Even a panel of experts can have an idiot.
[09:45] <stickyboy> We're just discussing. Relax. :)
[09:45] <stickyboy> What are we here for? To talk about the weather?
[09:45] <magespawn> maybe some have experience, that was the main point of asking
[09:45] <magespawn> nice and sunny here, thanks
[09:45] <stickyboy> magespawn: My first advice is to read the licese you're applying.
[09:46] <stickyboy> I don't need to be a lawyer to tell you that.
[09:46] <thatgraemeguy> if a group of diesel mechanics are discussing medical issues, it'd be rather daft for any of them to base a future decision on the results of the discussion
[09:46] <magespawn> right stickyboy 
[09:47] <stickyboy> GPLv2 license text has a section that says "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs".
[09:47] <stickyboy> That's a good starting point for the GPL.
[09:47] <magespawn> of course thatgraemeguy, but it might give them a point of reference when they do go to speak to a professional 
[09:47] <stickyboy> I don't know what license you're going to use.
[09:47] <stickyboy> We don't even know if the GPL is enforceable in court.
[09:47] <thatgraemeguy> -_-
[09:47] <magespawn> thanks stickyboy, i had not thought about it, until recently
[09:48] <magespawn> stickyboy: that is a good point, this is when we need a lawyer
[09:48] <magespawn> or at least an ip expert
[09:49] <stickyboy> Well yesterday the IP expert at our research institute concluded that it is impossible to have CC-BY-SA and allow commercial use of a work. She thinks "Share Alike" limits commercial use.
[09:49] <stickyboy> Yet Creative Commons' own website states the opposite.
[09:49] <stickyboy> So an IP expert isn't an absolute litmus test.
[09:50] <stickyboy> IP "expert" let me say. ;)
[09:50] <magespawn> as always
[09:50] <stickyboy> But this was our top legal officer.
[09:50] <magespawn> some of these issues are only resloved through the courts, and sometimes no even conclusively then
[09:51] <magespawn> s/no/not
[09:53] <stickyboy> I prefer to give my stuff away.
[09:53] <stickyboy> Or license it so that I don't have to be a policeman.
[09:53] <magespawn> stickyboy: i can see how that might work, in that most commercial work is not allowed to be shared, so you might have to specify which part is CC-BY-SA, so that people can share that part only
[09:54] <stickyboy> magespawn: Regarding the CC-BY-SA, we were talking about publications from our publicly-funded research institute. What is a derivative work of a publication?
[09:54] <magespawn> i think with code it would be hard to enforce for 'small' sections of code, rather than whole programs.
[09:55] <magespawn> stickyboy: sometimes the people providing the funding would expect ownership
[09:55] <stickyboy> For example, taking some text about some breakthrough in Cassava diseases, translating it into Xhosa, putting it in a book, and selling it.
[09:55] <stickyboy> In this instance, CC-BY-SA doesn't mean "Give the book away for $0"
[09:56] <stickyboy> It means "you should allow people to make photo copies of it, to write blog posts containing excerpts of the text, etc"
[09:56] <stickyboy> And I argued that, as a publicly-funded institute, this is part of our mandate.
[09:57] <magespawn> yes, and if they want to reprint and sell their version they can do so with out paying licence fees, but by passing along the same conditions
[10:02] <stickyboy> Yes.
[10:02] <stickyboy> I hope that I managed to convince the IP people.
[10:03] <stickyboy> I was copied in rather late in their discussion, and it seems they had already decided on their limiting view.
[10:03] <magespawn> they might be motivated by the people paying the bills
[10:10] <stickyboy> magespawn: People paying the bills are literally tax payers.
[10:10] <stickyboy> Like I said, we're publicly funded. :)
[10:10] <stickyboy> US gov, Canadian gov, Swedish, UK, Australia, etc.
[10:11] <stickyboy> Then Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who has a strict policy on open access: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/Open-Access-Policy
[10:11] <stickyboy> Sadly they recommend CC-BY only.
[11:23] <elacheche> Yo!
[11:23] <elacheche> Why here is no pics from ZA for the wikilovesafrica competition!! → https://twitter.com/MounirTouzri1/status/658393034615365633 ??!!!! 
[11:24] <elacheche> there*
[13:41] <andrewlsd> auf wieder sehn
[15:34] <elacheche> Kilos, Why there is no pics from ZA for the wikilovesafrica competition!! → https://twitter.com/MounirTouzri1/status/658393034615365633 ??!!!! 
[15:35] <Kilos> oh
[15:36] <Kilos> inetpro superfly Cryterion and aother clever peeps ^^
[15:37] <Kilos> wow elacheche so many pics there already
[15:37] <Kilos> you trying to win
[15:38] <Kilos> what is the prize
[15:40] <elacheche> no idea Kilos :D I'm not a photographer :p :D 
[15:40] <Kilos> lol
[15:41] <elacheche> :)
[18:34] <captine> evening all
[18:34] <captine> long time
[19:08] <Kilos> night all.sleep tight
[19:32] <captine> superfly
[19:32] <captine> how you doing
[19:34] <superfly> hey captine
[19:34] <superfly> fine, but busy
[19:34] <superfly> how are you?
[19:44] <captine> busy
[19:44] <captine> very busy
[19:44] <captine> been a tough 6 months
[19:51] <captine> gotto run
[19:51] <captine> cheers all
[20:20] <thatgraemeguy> moo
[20:27] <superfly> baa