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?
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?
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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?
_______________________________________________ cc-community mailing list cc-community@... http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
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?
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
RSS Feed22 | |
|---|---|
23 | |
36 | |
29 | |
84 | |
159 | |
29 | |
48 | |
260 | |
551 | |
76 | |
100 | |
6 | |
78 | |
10 | |
37 | |
298 | |
276 | |
32 | |
19 | |
27 | |
15 | |
12 | |
39 | |
18 | |
39 | |
93 | |
172 | |
37 | |
36 | |
39 | |
297 | |
49 | |
56 | |
10 | |
15 | |
69 | |
70 | |
20 | |
16 | |
65 | |
47 | |
16 | |
46 | |
95 | |
50 | |
55 | |
44 | |
77 | |
54 | |
93 | |
55 | |
82 | |
36 | |
19 | |
57 | |
55 | |
133 | |
60 | |
141 | |
193 | |
167 | |
128 | |
310 | |
168 | |
156 | |
291 | |
213 | |
149 | |
138 | |
36 | |
46 | |
94 | |
65 | |
68 | |
95 | |
43 | |
86 | |
96 | |
47 | |
44 | |
16 | |
5 | |
53 | |
74 | |
66 | |
24 | |
9 | |
11 | |
14 | |
29 | |
42 | |
28 | |
148 | |
104 | |
34 | |
45 | |
61 | |
89 | |
5 |