Paul Houle | 5 Jul 2010 21:15
Gravatar

Free Art License?

I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I 
found some under this license:

http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en

Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA?
Rob Myers | 5 Jul 2010 22:20
Gravatar

Re: Free Art License?

On 07/05/2010 08:15 PM, Paul Houle wrote:
> I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I
> found some under this license:
>
> http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en
>
> Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA?

Licences have to be *declared* compatible with CC-BY-SA.

This was one of the licences that has been mentioned as potentially 
compatible in the past. But it has not been declared compatible yet.

There are lots of little differences. The devil is always in the details...

- Rob.
Jon Phillips | 5 Jul 2010 23:25
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Free Art License?

It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has
had the time to get to this.

Jon

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Rob Myers <rob@...> wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 08:15 PM, Paul Houle wrote:
>>
>> I had my webcrawler out looking for media objects the other day and I
>> found some under this license:
>>
>> http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en
>>
>> Is it my imagination or is this license compatible with CC-BY-SA?
>
> Licences have to be *declared* compatible with CC-BY-SA.
>
> This was one of the licences that has been mentioned as potentially
> compatible in the past. But it has not been declared compatible yet.
>
> There are lots of little differences. The devil is always in the details...
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community@...
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>

--

-- 
(Continue reading)

Rob Myers | 5 Jul 2010 23:51
Gravatar

Re: Free Art License?

On 07/05/2010 10:25 PM, Jon Phillips wrote:
> It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has
> had the time to get to this.

Because of all the other details they've had to take care of!!1

;-)

- Rob.
drew Roberts | 6 Jul 2010 01:29

Re: Free Art License?

On Monday 05 July 2010 17:25:23 Jon Phillips wrote:
> It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has
> had the time to get to this.

One thing I don't like is French law ruling no matter where the "originating 
artist" is.
>
> Jon

drew
Claude Almansi | 6 Jul 2010 08:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: Free Art License?

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:29 AM, drew Roberts <zotz <at> 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Monday 05 July 2010 17:25:23 Jon Phillips wrote:
>> It might not be a devil at all rob. It might just be that no one has
>> had the time to get to this.
>
> One thing I don't like is French law ruling no matter where the "originating
> artist" is.

Yes, it can be problematic. Concrete case:

"Concours 2010 « Décris-moi la citoyenneté numérique »"
<http://www.ynternet.org/forumouvert/concours-2010-decris-moi-la-citoyennete-numerique>,
 is a writing competition in the context of 9e Forum eCulture in
Lausanne, Switzerland.

The Conditions de participation (pdf)
<http://ynternet.org/forumouvert/conditions-concours-v3-1.pdf> state
that the use of the LAL will be one of the 5 main assessment criteria
the jury will use ("Critères principaux: ... 5. Vous avez mentionné
en fin d'article qu'il est sous licence Art Libre
(http://artlibre.org/) ").

They  further indicate that the competition is realized by "la
fondation Ynternet.org, la HEPL du canton de Vaud et l'UNIL".
Ynternet.org has always advocated the LAL, but  it is slightly odd
that official Swiss institutions like HEPL (Haute école pédagogique du
canton de Vaud) and  UNIL (Université de Lausanne) should accept an
assessment criterium that imposes the use of a given license, moreover
one for which French Law applies.

(Continue reading)

Paul Houle | 6 Jul 2010 19:25
Gravatar

Compatibility of CC licenses between jurisidictions?

    Here's another practical problem.

    Let's suppose I'm writing a blog article (for the sake of argument,  
I'm based in the US )and I'm incorporating photographs that I've gotten 
from other sources.

    If the photographs are cc-by-{country} it seems like there's no 
problem if I attribute correctly.

    Now,  if the photographs are cc-by-sa-{country},  I'm a little more 
concerned.  Is cc-by-sa-{country} compatible with cc-by-sa unported?  
What issues are involved?

    When I look at wikipedia I see that wikipedia as a whole is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

    but I can find photos in wikimedia commons that are in specific 
country licenses,  for instance:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presa_chira_gran_canaria.JPG

    which is used on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Canaria

    of course there are also strange examples such as

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dingzhou_Liaodi_Pagoda_3.jpg

(Continue reading)

Mike Linksvayer | 6 Jul 2010 22:00
Gravatar

Re: Compatibility of CC licenses between jurisidictions?

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Paul Houle <paul-y/CxmIpJ61IWq+29V1O4KA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
  Here's another practical problem.

  Let's suppose I'm writing a blog article (for the sake of argument,  I'm based in the US )and I'm incorporating photographs that I've gotten from other sources.

  If the photographs are cc-by-{country} it seems like there's no problem if I attribute correctly.

  Now,  if the photographs are cc-by-sa-{country},  I'm a little more concerned.  Is cc-by-sa-{country} compatible with cc-by-sa unported?  What issues are involved?


They're specifically compatible, see 4(b) of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode -- depending on version(s) used an adaptation will have to used the latest of those used or a later one.
 
  When I look at wikipedia I see that wikipedia as a whole is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

  but I can find photos in wikimedia commons that are in specific country licenses,  for instance:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presa_chira_gran_canaria.JPG

  which is used on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Canaria

  of course there are also strange examples such as

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dingzhou_Liaodi_Pagoda_3.jpg

  which has contradictory statements on the page,  but contains the particularly strange assertion that "Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)"


Strange but not contradictory. Each license is nonexclusive.
 
-----

  Which then begs the question,  suppose I'm running a photo collection site,  say something like

http://carpictures.cc/

  what do I have to tell the users?  Can I just "relicense" the images as cc-by-sa/3.0 "unported" or do I have to code each and every possible license and explain them to end users?


You can't relicense verbatim works. You can use a compatible license (ie [un]ported of same or later version) for adaptations.

--
Mike Linksvayer, Vice President
Creative Commons
171 Second Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA  94105
office: +1 415-369-8480
fax: +1 415-278-9419
various: mlinksva
email (preferred): scroll up

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Note: I am in the office Monday through Friday, though I work from home some days. I am reachable electronically more hours than is healthy.

This email is:
  [ ] already on wikileaks   [X] ask first   [ ] top secret

Sent from a full-sized keyboard interfacing with GNU/Linux 2.6.32-22-generic #36-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 3 22:02:19 UTC 2010 i686
_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
drew Roberts | 7 Jul 2010 00:09

Re: Compatibility of CC licenses between jurisidictions?

On Tuesday 06 July 2010 13:25:43 Paul Houle wrote:
>     Here's another practical problem.
>
>     Let's suppose I'm writing a blog article (for the sake of argument,
> I'm based in the US )and I'm incorporating photographs that I've gotten
> from other sources.
>
>     If the photographs are cc-by-{country} it seems like there's no
> problem if I attribute correctly.

The example of using photos as illustrations in a text is possibly not the 
best example to explore the question you are asking.

Rather what if you were to be making a compound blog article using various 
texts under different country licenses and the unported license.

The reason is that the license on the photos may not matter as the theory is 
that the article is not a derivative of the photos. (Quick and dirty 
explanation from one ignorant in the art. Three should be discussions of this 
in the list archives though.)

all the best,

drew
>
>     Now,  if the photographs are cc-by-sa-{country},  I'm a little more
> concerned.  Is cc-by-sa-{country} compatible with cc-by-sa unported?
> What issues are involved?
>
>     When I look at wikipedia I see that wikipedia as a whole is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution
>-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
>
>     but I can find photos in wikimedia commons that are in specific
> country licenses,  for instance:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presa_chira_gran_canaria.JPG
>
>     which is used on the page
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Canaria
>
>     of course there are also strange examples such as
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dingzhou_Liaodi_Pagoda_3.jpg
>
>     which has contradictory statements on the page,  but contains the
> particularly strange assertion that "Multi-license with GFDL and
> Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 and older versions (2.0 and 1.0)"
>
> -----
>
>     Which then begs the question,  suppose I'm running a photo
> collection site,  say something like
>
> http://carpictures.cc/
>
>     what do I have to tell the users?  Can I just "relicense" the images
> as cc-by-sa/3.0 "unported" or do I have to code each and every possible
> license and explain them to end users?
Jessica Coates | 16 Jul 2010 05:02
Picon
Picon
Favicon

FW: Declaration of Open Government

Those interested in open PSI might be interested that Australia’s Government has just released an official Declaration of Open Government.

 

Not quite as strong on the open access issue as we would have liked, but it’s still a good move.

 

Jessica Coates

Project Manager, ccAustralia

 

 

via AGIMO Blog by Lindsay Tanner on 7/15/10

 

The central recommendation of the Government 2.0 Taskforce’s report was that the Australian Government makes a declaration of open government. As the Minister responsible for that Taskforce, I am proud to make that Declaration today on behalf of the Australian Government.

Declaration of Open Government

The Australian Government now declares that, in order to promote greater participation in Australia’s democracy, it is committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology.

Citizen collaboration in policy and service delivery design will enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought. Collaboration with citizens is to be enabled and encouraged. Agencies are to reduce barriers to online engagement, undertake social networking, crowd sourcing and online collaboration projects and support online engagement by employees, in accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission Guidelines.

The possibilities for open government depend on the innovative use of new internet-based technologies. Agencies are to develop policies that support employee-initiated, innovative Government 2.0-based proposals.

The Australian Government’s support for openness and transparency in Government has three key principles:

  • Informing: strengthening citizen’s rights of access to information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies including through online innovation, and making government information more accessible and usable;

  • Engaging: collaborating with citizens on policy and service delivery to enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought; and

  • Participating: making government more consultative and participative.

Supporting Initiatives

The Australian Government’s commitment to action on each of these principles is demonstrated by:

  • the passage of legislation reforming the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and establishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner;

  • the Government’s announcement on 3 May 2010 of its response to the Government 2.0 Taskforce report, Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0;  and

  • Its response to the Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the Reform of Australian Government Administration report, in which the Government agreed that creating more open government is a key reform for the Australian Public Service.

Effective collaboration between citizens and government requires timely sharing of the information held by Government. The Government’s FOI Reforms create the new statutory Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and establish a comprehensive Information Publication Scheme that requires agencies to publish a wide range of information.

The Australian Government has commenced the program of initiatives outlined in its response to the Taskforce’s report in accordance with the agreed implementation timetable.

The Department of Finance and Deregulation will report annually on implementation progress of the recommendations of the Government 2.0 Taskforce to the Government through the Secretaries’ Information and Communications Technology Governance Board.

The Gillard Government is committed to creating a culture of public sector openness, transparency and engagement. This Declaration is a demonstration of that commitment.

The Declaration underpins a range of Government initiatives already under way. The establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Government’s broader freedom of information reforms aim to restore trust and integrity in government and drive agencies to proactively release information to the public. The Declaration also reflects one of the key reforms of Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for Reform of Australian Government Administration, which called for more open government.

The Declaration encourages and affirms among Australian Government agencies a culture of openness built on the key principles of informing, engaging and participating with the public. And it acknowledges that the internet holds a crucial role in realising a more open and transparent form of government in this country.

The Declaration is about making more government information available to the public online, and encouraging reuse of that information in new, valuable and potentially unexpected ways. It is about giving Australians more of a say in forming the policy and delivering the services that have an influence on their lives. It is about enabling government agencies and individual public servants to be more innovative and more responsive to input and feedback, while still maintaining the high ethical and professional standards we expect.

I believe that the Declaration lays an important foundation in implementing our Government 2.0 agenda.  In the spirit of that agenda I urge you to read the Declaration and welcome your ongoing feedback as the Gillard Government implements a culture of openness and works towards a more participatory form of government.

Lindsay Tanner

Minister for Finance and Deregulation

 

_______________________________________________
cc-community mailing list
cc-community@...
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

Gmane