decide on licensing for content

[chadwhitacre]

@bronwenc points to http://theconversation.com/au/republishing_guidelines as a model worth emulating. Is that reducible to one of the Creative Commons licenses?

[chadwhitacre]

Our articles are licensed under Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives

:-)

[chadwhitacre]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

[bronwenc]

Is that on the page where the articles appear? If we agree to CC licence, we should probably note it at the bottom of articles to encourage it.

On 4 February 2014 13:03, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.com wrote:

Our articles are licensed under Creative Commons -- Attribution/No derivatives

:-)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/opencompany/www.opencompany.org/issues/87#issuecomment-34023711 .

Bronwen Clune t: @bronwen http://twitter.com/bronwen m: + 61 423 863 843 s: bronwenclune g: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/bronwen-clune

[chadwhitacre]

@bronwenc Agreed, we should state the license in the footer. The "Our articles are licensed under Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives" quote is from The Conversation's Republishing Guidelines (point 9). I.e., they use CC BY-ND.

So what I'm hearing is that we can go for straight CC BY-ND, and that we should add that to our footer. Yes?

[bronwenc]

Yep.

On 4 February 2014 13:13, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.com wrote:

@bronwenc https://github.com/bronwenc Agreed, we should state the license in the footer. The "Our articles are licensed under Creative Commons -- Attribution/No derivatives" quote is from The Conversation's Republishing Guidelines http://theconversation.com/au/republishing_guidelines (point 9). I.e., they use CC BY-ND.

So what I'm hearing is that we can go for straight CC BY-ND, and that we should add that to our footer. Yes?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/opencompany/www.opencompany.org/issues/87#issuecomment-34024240 .

Bronwen Clune t: @bronwen http://twitter.com/bronwen m: + 61 423 863 843 s: bronwenclune g: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/bronwen-clune

[chadwhitacre]

Hmmm ... reading up on this further:

Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.

What happens when we ask @kyzh to translate your post into French?

Also, licensing doesn't address the issue of who owns the copyright in the first place. Is it the author? The Open Company Initiative is not a legal entity in its own right; we're housed at The Saxifrage School. So if we don't keep copyright with the author, it seems that Saxifrage would be the alternative. If Saxifrage holds the copyright then it would seem that Saxifrage can translate to its heart's content. If the author holds the copyright then what's our legal basis for letting @kyzh do a translation, if we're not allowing derivatives? (And is it clear enough that quoting an article is not a derivative work?)

And anyway, are we really going to take legal action against someone who violates this license? Do we really want to get into a game of hollow CYA?

@bronwenc Would you be willing to license your work under the simpler CC-BY license instead?

[bronwenc]

I don't mind. Let's try this and see what issues arise.

On 4 February 2014 14:14, Chad Whitacre notifications@github.com wrote:

Hmmm ... reading up on this furtherhttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#When_is_my_use_considered_an_adaptation.3F :

Generally, a modification rises to the level of an adaptation under copyright law when the modified work is based on the prior work but manifests sufficient new creativity to be copyrightable, such as a translation of a novel from one language to another, or the creation of a screenplay based on a novel.

What happens when we ask @kyzh https://github.com/kyzh to translate your post into French?

Also, licensing doesn't address the issue of who owns the copyright in the first place. Is it the author? The Open Company Initiative is not a legal entity in its own right; we're housed at The Saxifrage School. So if we don't keep copyright with the author, it seems that Saxifrage would be the alternative. If Saxifrage holds the copyright then it would seem that Saxifrage can translate to its heart's content. If the author holds the copyright then what's our legal basis for letting @kyzhhttps://github.com/kyzhdo a translation, if we're not allowing derivatives? (And is it clear enough that quoting an article is not a derivative work?)

And anyway, are we really going to take legal action against someone who violates this license? Do we really want to get into a game of hollow CYA?

@bronwenc https://github.com/bronwenc Would you be willing to license your work under the simpler CC-BYhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/license instead?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/opencompany/www.opencompany.org/issues/87#issuecomment-34026987 .

Bronwen Clune t: @bronwen http://twitter.com/bronwen m: + 61 423 863 843 s: bronwenclune g: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/bronwen-clune

[chadwhitacre]

Done: http://www.opencompany.org/2014/01/27/how-your-company-can-benefit-from-being-open-lessons-from-balanced.html

Look okay?