License

[ralphtheninja]

I think it would be wise to add a license to the project. I don't really have an opinion on which license to use (I mainly use MIT myself) as long as it has one. This is just to be clear for what can be done with the content in case you fork it etc.

[MrChrisJ]

Well I was thinking CC-BY-SA but then again what if Governments start using it? Can I put in an exception clause in it so that if they use it they have to pay me lots of money? Like a CC-BY-NC-SA for Government and large corporations. Small businesses and individuals it's SA all the way! :)

[ralphtheninja]

Yeah, questions on licenses can be really hard. You can probably create your own license, but you would have to define "lots of money" :)

[CactusJumper]

Sorry to say but, if a something is released under a OSS license, it has to be free to all users, individuals, governments and terrorists :) 'It is an explicit "feature" of open source that it may put no restrictions on the use or distribution by any organization or user.' from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions

[dharmocracy]

Natural Person Acting in Private Capacity will ensure that no Officials or Gov can create -- they are not acting in their private capacity. Business and companies also cannot act in this way. Be careful about LICENCE / LICENSE -- you may find that you need a licence or authority to issue a licence. Asia do not like people messing around with documents etc -- you could easily be charged with fraud and here in thailand you will instantly be charged with WORKING if you are producing something.. and then they will go after you for working without a proper visa .. I help people in courts /prisons etc for 7 years here ... and worked 13 yrs before that keeping myself out of trouble.

[MrChrisJ]

Ok I have added the licence, I realised CC-BY-SA was perfect https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/commit/1767bb896261803b7129551f76c11b073bd573ca

[dharmocracy]

Will catch up later. Just want to understand your thinking. May need explaining for abbrev

Will send tweet message about my day. Very good. Kings Palace no less. Won't tweet in public

Phra lewis On 28 Oct 2014 19:07, "MrChrisJ" notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok I have added the licence, I realised CC-BY-SA was perfect 1767bb8 https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/commit/1767bb896261803b7129551f76c11b073bd573ca

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/issues/6#issuecomment-60745324 .

[MrChrisJ]

Hey @CactusJumper I see here that Creative Commons recommend you don't use their licences for Software https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F

But since I am not producing software with this project my logic is that it is Techne/Art/Craft/τέχνη. It's a process or containing know-how: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-how

What do you think?

[CactusJumper]

Not sure about CC licensing. Maybe you could apply GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html) or similar, at least to parts of the work? But you didn't want an open source license, am I right? Also, there is a distinction between a license and a patent, which is more like protecting an idea. At least for software you can't protect the underlying ideas behind a work with a license.

[wrapperband]

license is the biggest cause of conflict in projects. Does "Public domain" fit this need better? I think may need more discussion / research

[ralphtheninja]

What have I started? :)

[MrChrisJ]

@CactusJumper Oh no I am absolutely open sourcing this. I want people to use it. I just don't want governments taking the idea and adapting it for nefarious ends. I want people to start using this and then when they spread it I want a licence that says they have to make it available for other people as well hence the share alike clause.

When I said I wanted lots of money from the governments and big corporates I just meant as a disincentive for them to take the idea, change it slightly, make it proprietary and then to make it evil by removing the open source elements like PGP.

@ralphtheninja - a great discussion : )

[MrChrisJ]

@wrapperband you're right. And without the resources to fight in court it's not a licence it's literature. But as such it is a declaration of intent. I have already made it public domain when I uploaded it, with the BY-SA clause I am simply adding clarification for the record that this is how I intend for it to be used: http://www.cryptograffiti.info/?txnr=1307

The above is proof of publication.

[dharmocracy]

Hi Chris, (All). I think you should look at Right of Use - limited to natural person. If gov really want to steal the concept all they will do is force people to use a system of their choosing. I am not sure which tech or system you are trying to licence/open source. The creator can impose certain conditions on his/her creation and its use. here is something that may help you to draft your own type of copyright

Everything on this website is made available to you thanks to the generosity of dozens of authors, translators, publishers, and transcribers, all of whom contributed their efforts with the explicit understanding that the fruits of their labors would be given away free of charge, as an expression of dana. You may download these files to your computer, print them out, read them, share them with your friends, copy them to your own website, translate them into other languages, and redistribute them electronically — provided that you do not charge any money for them. They are not (except as noted above) in the public domain. (taken from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/faq.html#copyright)

many bhikkhus(monks) do not even wish to have their name on works The subject of licences is something that should be addressed by a wider group. Often there is a message to commercial or corporate entities instructing them to contact the author or group if not for their own personal use.

[patcon]

I appreciate you Chris, but I am mostly in disagreement with everything said here fwiw: https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/issues/6#issuecomment-60757432

Why do we care about controlling the idea? Why not just public domain? If someone wants to repurpose this for "evil" or profit, that is really outside our concern. This is an idea. Ideas can be commandeered for good and bad, and that is not really something we can legal magic wave away imho

[MrChrisJ]

So would you prefer CC0? http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

[patcon]

Personally, I'm with @ralphtheninja on MIT (assuming we're software). And apologies, the word I was looking for was "permissive", not "public domain".

This great site is an initiative by github: http://choosealicense.com/

[MrChrisJ]

This great site is an initiative by github: http://choosealicense.com/

I really like GPL : )

But right now this isn't software which is why I am using CC licence. So @patcon are you of the view this should be CC0?

[patcon]

I'm in favour of free (as in speech), so the most permissive possible, which i think is CC0 :)

[ghost]

I am also in favor of libre/free ideals. I personally think CC-SA-BY would be better, since it includes an aspect of virality missing from CC0. Where CC0 is akin to the MIT license, CC-SA-BY is akin to the GPL. I like the idea that anyone who works on extending this project or creating variations on it will be compelled to share their alterations with the rest of us. I think that's very much in the spirit of trying to create a global passport system.

[happygiraffee]

as a new-bee I am a bit disappointed that CC0 is out of favour here...

[ghost]

From my perspective, requiring sharing is a protective measure to prevent our work from being co-opted by private interests. It seems to me the most pragmatic option given our goals here. But what in particular appeals to you about CC0 versus something like CC-SA-BY?

[MrChrisJ]

One argument in favour of @happygiraffee is that it could prevent business opportunities emerging if entrepreneurs felt restricted by SA-BY. I am willing to be persuaded on this issue if a good argument is presented because in real terms I think we all know that there are no enforcement agents when it comes to these kind of licences so really all we are doing is declaring our intent.

[thecuriosity]

I think CC-SA-BY will discourage contribution by firms, and in a way reduce the popularity of the project.

[happygiraffee]

Echoing with @MrChrisJ and @thecuriosity I consider the potential for business opportunity and project popularity as among the advantages of CC0, but what particularly appeals to me is also the liberty that it grants its users.

[apotheon]

I, for one, am rather disappointed with the use of a restrictive license for this project -- and any license with compatibility issues like almost the entire set of CC licenses (CC0 is the only one without any meaningful compatibility issues) is restrictive in some very practical ways, damaging for the ability to reuse in conjunction with other "open" licenses. In general, I consider CC licenses other than CC0 to basically be no-derivatives licenses because of the legal prohibitions arising as emergent properties of the incompatibility with other licenses.

. . . and, frankly, you can't stop a government from using something by applying copyright law when the government makes the law. Just a few years ago (for example), US Congress actually declared some classical music compositions whose copyrights had expired, leaving those compositions in the public domain for decades, under copyright once more to match the law in the country of origin for those compositions as an exception to the otherwise generally consistent law on the matter.

Trying to use the law to stop the entity that defines the law from using your software is an exercise in futility, in the end. Just use whatever means the law provides to nullify the restrictions placed by that law, by default, on what you want to share so those of us who want to combine good things to make even better things won't fear having our lives destroyed in court for expanding the reach and advancement of human learning.

To maximize reusability and legal access, the term for the class of licensing I'd recommend is copyfree. Given the application of CC-anything-other-than-zero, the most I'd do with this project is learn from it, then find ways to disseminate the lessons learned to others in a way they wouldn't be discouraged from using without running afoul of your copyright privileges.

[wrapperband]

Thanks for that copyright information, apotheon. You convinced me...

[MrChrisJ]

Hey @apotheon well put thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.. @wrapperband I am convinced too. I have updated it to CC0 for now to bring it in to line with the Fullnode project https://github.com/MrChrisJ/World-Citizenship/commit/273eb43210b8e4320edc7b1b9a45b8cc5c12cf40

[apotheon]

Wow . . . thanks for taking my commentary well. I appreciate that, and will try to find time within my job's 20% Time hours allotment to find ways to contribute to this CC0 project.