Proposed License: "The Virtual World Fairness License"

[SundanceHaiku]

INTRODUCTION

It wasn’t until a week ago that Fred mention that under the AGPL, components that we make for the Ruth Project can sold. That hit me like a ton of bricks. I had no idea. I had been laboring away on something that could be used for a purpose that is completely counter to what I originally intended it for.

I blame no one. It’s my fault for not sitting down and researching exactly what AGPL means.

But AGPL allows commercial entities like Maitreya, Belleza and to take my Fingernail HUD and other things that I make for Ruth and sell them without even having to check with me. It literally makes me heartsick. This is something that I put hours of time into and it is meant to be free.

As a result of this new understanding of AGPL, I am proposing a license that I would like to use - and perhaps others - in regards to the Ruth 2 project.

This is a proposed draft. I’m completely open to suggestions and changes. But there is one principle that is critical for my continued participation in this project – and that is, I want my work to remain free of cost. That means the license must include a restriction from commercial use.

BACKGROUND

I’ve now put in somewhere between 25 to 30 hours of work researching the various licenses out there. (Fortunately - or perhaps, unfortunately, this was a vacation week for me.)

Using this information, I have created what I call the “Virtual World Fairness License.”

Fortunately, some of the best licenses to work from are in the public domain, and I have use direct wording from them. They have been written by attorneys who are experts in this kind of law, and I’ve been able to use their expertise.

Unfortunately, AGPL will not allow individuals to modify its license, which means that I would be violating their copyright if I used some of their wording in my proposed license. I find it interesting that they support open source computer code, but not open source license code.

Fortunately, Lawrence Rosen, a prominent attorney who specializes in open source software licenses, practices what he preaches. He makes his licenses, including one for non-profit uses, available to use and modify. His licenses are approved by the Open Source Initiative. In addition, Creative Commons has a license specific for non-profit uses. For computer code, however, the CC license requires alterations. In the end, the Creative Commons license became a main template from which I worked, but I used wording and concepts from open source software licenses.

I have placed a draft of the license along with a summary in the "License" area on GitHub. There are two copies of the License. One is a PDF version which is much easier read. The other is a text version that you can comment directly on. Please underline or otherwise make your comments stand out.

[Outworldz]

It's fine if you license your HUD ander any license you want. I understand your feelings, since I have been given away almost everything I do for 12 years now. And sometimes I wonder why people should profit off my work. Some of my work is marked as CC-BY-NC for that reason.

But if someone sells or gives away your HUD, would it be that bad? The reseller has to tell them the HUD is free, and they can get it from the included link. In practise, this makes it very difficult to sell the HUD. Would you pay for a copy of GNU/Linux, which is GPL? Some people do - for support, for a CD, for a variation of it, for customized support. GPLI is one of the key reasons Linux and its tools has taken off as it has to be the #1 operating system in the world. The only difference in GPL and AGPL is that I cannot modify or improve your HUD and keep it to my grid. As long as it runs on my Grids computers, I don't have to release my improvements to anyone. Under AGPL, that loophole ios slammed shut.

If you make your HUD non-commercial, it cannot be included in any product that has a price on it other than zero. This will limit it's distribution and use. Shin and I chose the AGPL because it promotes wider use of Free Open Source Software, and you get back any changes from others who can modify your work under any other license. No other license covered that. This benefits everyone and leads to much wider acceptance and use, and it does not take anything from us.

Also, the AGPl and GPL, which underlies AGPL, allows you to change it, provided the GPL name and heading are removed. It's in there somewhere, in the FAQ, I think.

In any case, as you feel strongly about it, please do what feels right for you.

~Fred

[SundanceHaiku]

Fred,

"If you make your HUD non-commercial, it cannot be included in any product that has a price on it other than zero."

I have that covered. My license specifically gives people the right to sell skins, clothing, etc.

[aiaustin]

Sundance... for the draft PDF of your licence.. I really think you need to remove the top line of the title.. it could imply that the license applies to the core Ruth 2.0 assets rather than to specific contributions associated with it.

Warning.. people tend not to actually read licences. Sundance ;-)

That’s why I like the CC style... the letters basically tell you all you need to know such as in CC-BY- NC-SA.

Uniquely worded one off licences need to be read and understood... serious commercial entities will read them carefully to check they have the rights they need, but casual creators may not. You don’t want to be constantly chasing misuse. But having said that you want a licence that meets your needs.

[SundanceHaiku]

"Also, the AGPl and GPL, which underlies AGPL allows you to change it, provided the GPL name and heading are removed. "

This is from their AGPL copyright notice: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." I read that to say that their license agreement is copyrighted and can only be used without changes. I didn't want to use it verbatim. I only wanted to use parts of it. I think that sort of use would be in violation of those terms.

[SundanceHaiku]

Ai, here you go . . .

BY SA NC ND(for commercial use)

[Outworldz]

I applaud this effort, as it looks like it could be useful in some circumstances, such as your HUD. But there are many questions.

A quibble: Your license excludes skins. Perhaps it is a typo: "Example: The Mesh Project wants to use the Applier (which is a Licensed Work) to distribute skins for their mesh avatars. Permission would be required" This is almost the same as for a tattoo, which has the opposite conclusion. It also conflicts in other wording.

One potential big problem is this license assumes single ownership of copyright. Ruth is multi-ownered and copyrighted collectively. This license cannot apply to her: Anyone who has made changes to her must also also grant permission. One person could thus stop the commercial use. In practise, this is impossible.

2.1 Is what AGPL prohibits. A Grid must "send" her to others to view. This is not "convey" under AGPL, as it does not violate a copyright to look at an Avatar. The word "distributed" needs precise legal meaning, such as "convey" as found in the (A) GPL. TOS's try to cover this by allowing the grid operator to make copies to send your appearance to viewers, as a necessary and fundamental part of the service.

"Major Use" is not defined, see C.1

4.a.1.5 asks for 4(a)(1)(A), which does not exist, I think this is 4(a)(1)(i).

5.c I am not in agreement with the ability to change the comm channel. I can certainly see why it is in there, though. 5.c is the opposite of Open Source, It's DRM. With this section in effect, accessories for Ruth cannot be interchanged. She becomes proprietary in run-time form, and there is no access to the source. She becomes proprietary, which is the very last thing we want. Besides, security through obscurity is not security, In GPL, and perhaps in your license, if someone can crack the codes they are allowed to bypass any such security measures or delete the code.

I believe strongly that Ruth should be made of interchangeable parts. And there is a security risk, we need to know it so we can come up with a fix. Thus we need to AGPL. A HUD that did this and kept the source closed for that change is not compatible with Ruth's scripts.

[Outworldz]

From the FAQ: Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? (#ModifyGPL) It is possible to make modified versions of the GPL, but it tends to have practical consequences.

You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

[aiaustin]

If you use a CC licence with ND (no derivatives) on it you prevent modifications for everyone. I don’t think you are allowed to add the “for commercial users” qualifier for that part and it would anyway conflict with NC and possibly the ability to modify and SA aspects I think you seek.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Thanks for removing the potentially misleading initial line of the title in the first draft Sundance. Just a thought... putting the PDF of your draft license as worded into the Ruth Licenses directory may be a source of confusion in case people think it may apply to the AGPL or other specific licensed parts... it might be better to move it to your own named contributions directory for now. If or when you get a final version you are happy with you can say which elements are under that license in Licenses.txt and then place it in the top level Licenses directory.

Publically should be publicly I think... even in the US.

For contact for commercial licensing I think you need more than an e-mail address as that may not stand the test of time... you need a proper postal contact as well.. as that can be more easily followed up as you move about or to contact your estate after death. And yes I really do think long term for such assets... I have had collaborators die during projects where we still had to deliver the results.

You mention modifications being placed at an openly accessible URI. Web sites frequently disappear or URLs change. Public repositiries that can be copied by othes and are typcally achived may be a better requirement.

[Outworldz]

The proposed license is clearly marked as "A Proposal for the Ruth 2 Project - The Virtual World Fairness License". That seems pretty clear that is just a proposal. One of the nice things about git is any one of us can move it, and any one of us can move it right back. So it's good of Austin to ask. But I don't personally see a need to move it, because of that title.

We do all need to be 100% clear what license applies to what, in the Licenses.txt file since if no license is specified by the author, the license will automatically be AGPL as it is a contribution to an AGPL project.

Secondly, I want to be clear that Ruth is licensed under AGPL, and that is not going to change. Shin Ingen is the original author, but anyone who has contributed to her parts has a copyright in her, Even someone who have disavowed all copyright and contributed has their contribution fall under AGPL.
And I don't think anyone can change his or my mind, let alone all the rest of us.

If you wrote the whole program yourself, you are the copyright holder—so you can authorize exceptions to the AGPL. You can even remove the AGPL entirely for future versions. AGPL GPL also allows an author to stay with AGPL and still contribute work with exceptions, provided it does not remove rights given under AGPL. For example, you cannot take away the Commercial clause, as that would remove a right granted to the end user. But you can allow someone to include and link non-GPL code, as that grants additional rights to a user for your code.

If you want to use parts of other GPL-covered programs by other authors in your code, you cannot authorize the exception for them. You have to get the approval of all of the copyright holders of those programs. And that is not going to happen on Ruth's mesh. Scripts are probably a different matter, depending upon whether the script has been changed, and by whom.

~Fred

[SundanceHaiku]

Fred, thank you. I can tell you went through the proposal with a fine tooth comb, even finding the 4(a)(1)(i) mistake. I so appreciate that you took the time to review it. Let me just respond to your first couple of comments - with the second one being the most important:

A quibble: Your license excludes skins. Perhaps it is a typo: "Example: The Mesh Project wants to use the Applier (which is a Licensed Work) to distribute skins for their mesh avatars. Permission would be required" This is almost the same as for a tattoo, which has the opposite conclusion. It also conflicts in other wording.

Thank you. I meant to say "sell" the skins. I will correct that.

One potential big problem is this license assumes single ownership of copyright. Ruth is multi-ownered and copyrighted collectively. This license cannot apply to her: Anyone who has made changes to her must also also grant permission. One person could thus stop the commercial use. In practise, this is impossible.

Whenever an individual indicates that a Work is copyrighted, that individual owns the copyright. According to copyright law an individual can "cede" rights to others. Under this license I would ceding the full rights to use and modify the Work as long as it is non-commercial. Yes, I retain the right to refuse permission to use it in commercial way. That's the purpose of the license.

I'm not sure about a collective copyright. I do know that some businesses will require everyone to license their copyrights in the same way. I thought, however, from your earlier comments that it was permissible to develop my own license. The Ruth project currently has components with different licenses in Github so it seems like this is reasonable to do. But you, as owners of the project, certainly have the right to require one type of license. If that's the case, please let me know.

Let me say something in regard to the Ruth Avatar. There is in nothing in my license that would restrict the selling of the Ruth Avatar. My license can only apply to the those items licensed by it, just as the Ruth Avatar's license only applies to her.

I've always understood the Ruth Project to be a non-commercial venture. If that's so, I don't how the proposed license conflicts with anything within the project if the intention of the project is to keep everything on a non-commercial basis. There are absolutely no restrictions in this license for non commercial use of the work.

I understand people will be selling skins, clothing, etc. That's great and the proposed license fully supports that. And yes since Ruth is licensed as AGPL, I understand that people can sell her. But the Ruth Project itself, as I understand it, is non-commercial. Everything going on within the project is done on a free, non-commercial basis.

The selling of the Ruth avatar, for an example, would be something that is removed from the project. People can remove those portions of the project that are saleable and sell them commercially. But that happens outside the confines of the project, not inside. My license restricts commercial use outside the Ruth Project, but there are no restrictions within the project.

But, I need to go back to this idea of restricting licenses to only one type for the Ruth project. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the whole point of the project. This is something that is pretty important to know before I continue to putting a lot of effort to make modifications in the proposed license. Do the owners want only want the AGPL license?

[Outworldz]

The copyrights to changes belong to the original authors of each change. So everyone who made changes to Ruth has a copyright in Ruth. I think it is wise to defer to Shins judgement on this, too, as it is his project, and he and I have both stated that she will always be AGPL.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone has any objection to different licenses being used. As you have noted, I have included many other licensed products herein, so go ahead an add what you want to the Ruth project so long as it is a a separate, original work. It just needs to be perfectly clear what is and what is not covered by that licence.

[SundanceHaiku]

I have posted Draft #2 of the proposed license in which a number of changes were made based on Ai and Fred's comments. The permission requirements have been dropped which greatly simplifies the license. The waiver for individuals who make major contributions to the Ruth 2 Project have been dropped. Protection of Virtual Intellectual & Artistic Property has been dropped.

It needs further refinements. It doesn't yet address Fred's concerns about the use of "convey" but that's for a later a draft.

I'm pretty well worn out, and need to take a good long rest from licenses and come back some time later. Real life work is going to divert my time, but I want to continue to help where I can on the project - and, in particular, I promised Ada that I would work on the UV maps for the Roth's feet. I plan to get on that soon.

[Outworldz]

Closing