License for the definition?

[openp2pdesign]

Which license should we use for our Open Design definition? If we look at the existing definitions, we can see few options... But I would say that just a Copyright without any additions (Creative Commons, for example) is really a bad choice, I think that the Open Design definition that was done in the year 2000 (and that is just only protecting its copyright without sharing it) did a wrong move.

I liked, for example, that the Open Hardware definition is under a Creative Commons BY license, it should be clear that our definition comes from our group...

What do you think about this?

[trox]

we should first check if the definition is covered by copyright at all, otherwise the license is meaningless

[PedroPineda]

I kind of like the idea from Sharism http://sharism.org/. Off course is kind of hard if somebody gets your idea and is millionaire just because he produced it, however i feel that if a big company wants to do it, they just do it. So why bothering so much??

Best

From sharism http://sharism.org/:

Whenever someone marks a work with ✳, it means that person is willing to share it with you.

The work can be used worldwide for any purpose whatsoever (no copyright), so you're free to copy, use, and redistribute the work any way you like. Giving credit is optional.

If you need more clarity, please read the Sharing Agreementhttp://sharism.org/agreement. It's lengthy, but legit.

On 12 August 2012 13:26, ptroxler notifications@github.com wrote:

we should first check if the definition is covered by copyright at all, otherwise the license is meaningless

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/OpenDesign-WorkingGroup/Open-Design-Definition/issues/5#issuecomment-7674801.

Note: My old phone was stolen, this is my new number: 0049 (o) 15784749363

Pedro Pineda Phone: 0049 (o) 15784749363 Skype: simple-mente Twitter: @pedropiba

Work MakerLab: www.makerlab.info EnableBerlin: www.enableberlin.org Open Design City (Betahaus): www.opendesigncity.de

We Creative People*

We are a proactive platform and creative consultancy.

We apply our collective power to the realization of projects and initiatives.

www.wecreativepeople.com

[openp2pdesign]

So far, all the definitions we have included in the repository and that we have checked, are released under a Creative Commons license (so they have a copyright). Definitions are not licenses, please remember!

I've checked a bit, they are a sort of private legal documents (not public! public legal documents are an exception of copyright) so copyright applies to them, and therefore a Creative Commons license (remember: fair use is also possible). Many thanks to Dannie Jost for the suggestion! :)

[mushon]

I'm completely fine with CC-BY

[openp2pdesign]

We are already using a CC-BY for the moment, it should be ok... otherwise feel free to comment!