I would’ve posted this in the intellectual property thread, but I felt it would’ve been too specific.
I came across this site a little while ago, & recently found it in my bookmarks after a bit of digging.
(the following is from the policy page)
Thoughts?
I think it is the authors choice as to which copyxxxx licence to use. It is up to the author and perhaps even the publisher whether or not they want to restrict distribution, limit distribution, or provide limitless distribution. The Copyfree concept seems similar though not exactly the same to the concept of the BSD licence for software, where sourcecode does not have to remain open in derivative works.
At this moment in time, in regards to the online software, it seems both copyright and copyleft can both coexist. I think copyfree can only add to this.
Indeed, I was considering using copyfree on something like maybe a blog, as it would seem next to pointless for me to copyright my opinion, save for simply showing where credit is due.
I’m not quite sure on it’s implications on other more tangible works, such as images, music, etc., though; seems a bit vauge at this stage of the liscence’s development.
Perhaps this wouldn’t have been too specific to put in one of the other threads, hmm…
Damnit, lost my post…starting again…
All creative works are automatically copywritten (copyrighted?) under current law without you having to take any action. Adding the little © is just a formality. You have to specifically put your works under a different license than the default if you wish to release it in a different form.
All forms of copyright restrict usage to some degree except for works that are in the public domain. They all work from within the system, that’s how the provisions are enforced.
If they really wanted free unlimited usage of their works all they have to do is release it into the public domain and be done with it—no need to redefine the term ‘public domain’ by calling it copyfree.
OK, firefox 3.0b5 keeps eating my text so I’ll just leave it at that…
Judging by some of the discussion I’ve seen here, it seems that one or more of you might think that the copyfree reference in the OP is a specific license. It is not. It is, like “open source software”, “creative commons”, or “copyleft”, a term for a type of license. Copyfree licenses include things like the BSD License, the Beer License, the MIT License, the Public Distribution License, and so on.
In my opinion, the PDL ( http://pdl.apotheon.org ) is ideal for use on a Weblog. In fact, I use it on mine.
The reason for using a copyfree license instead of simply releasing something into the public domain is that making trivial changes to a work in the public domain allows one to subject it to the full restrictions of copyright again; meanwhile, a copyfree license substantially protects the same rights as the public domain, but does so in perpetuity to any recipient of a given licensed work or derivatives of it. Releasing something into the public domain only offers such legal protections of one’s rights for one generation of the work. The first-generation derivative work can be licensed any way the deriver likes.
How does one use the PDL; or more specifically, what symbol(s) does one use on say, a blog, to signify the use of the PDL?
I ask because people would regonize something similar to the (C) copyright symbol, and it would signify the use of the PDL liscense as “official” if some type of symbol were used, methinks.
Yeah, one would have to actually follow the link to make that distinction…which I still haven’t done BTW.
I kind of doubt that RMS would agree with you that all those different licenses are within the spirit of ‘copyleft’ as I believe he is the one who coined the term and is pretty adamant about his belief in the GPL.
From the GNU;
I know that the BSD license only has the requirement that you have to leave in the bit that says where you got the code from hence Apple being able to do whatever they want with Darwin and not having to give their code changes back to the community even though they (mostly) do.
Same with the apache, old xfree86 (not too sure about the new one) and a host of others that I would imagine include your list.
Now the inherent ‘freeness’ of the GPL is a subject of much debate between myself and the Open Source Illuminati whenever I can drag them into the subject but I have to keep the kid gloves on so I don’t get banned from that other site…
I prefer completely public domain to those slightly restrictive open source licenses.
In practice, it’s practically impossible to determine if someone plaigarized an open source project and violated the license.
Oh I know that; I don’t care much about plaigarization, it’s a natural & fairly infrequent risk on the internet whenever posting content (depending on the content, of course; artworks are more at risk to being plagiarized than words are, etc.).
It would be easy to find possible cases of plaigarization & to speak out to “prove” that you are the original author, of say, a certain essay or blog post one may have written.
Public domain may end up being my choice if I don’t end up using an alternative license, but I would prefer to use an alternative license as I think using such (and being able to put an official notice, much like the (C) symbol for copyright is used, for the use of said license) for my blog would help spread awareness of alternatives to copyright.
I also think it would aesthetically “neat” or interesting to do, too :).
Information about how to notify that content is distributed under the terms of the PDL can be found on this page:
An example, as in the case of my own weblog, is at the bottom of every page of the weblog:
While I think that would be great, some symbol invented for the PDL would not have the same legal weight as the copyright symbol. As such, the symbol would always have to be followed by notice of license terms, such as the notification forms suggested at the above link, to have any legal standing. If someone comes up with a good symbol to use, I’ll see about creating a button with the symbol and the license name on it that can be used to link to the license, similar to this for the CCD CopyWrite license:
In the meantime, if you want to couple a symbol with the PDL notice, you might consider the copyfree symbol (which by itself doesn’t imply any particular licensing terms):
http://www.copyfree.org/img/copyfree.png
Of course, if you use that you should copy it to your computer, use an image editing program to scale it appropriately, and host it on whatever site it is on which you want to use the symbol, if possible.
I never said “all those licenses” were “in the spirit of copyleft”. The licenses I listed in the text you quoted are in the spirit of a copyfree philosophy. I suspect you misread what I posted here.
You’re right about the difficulty of determining if an open source project was plagiarized and the license violated. The same is true of copyrighted projects, however, so I’m not sure I see your point. In any case, the point of a copyfree policy is that it’s basically self-enforcing; it is a protection for those who use the code against those who would seek to sue them on spurious claims of copyright infringement. The only notable differences between a proper copyfree license and the public domain are, first, that copyfree licenses are legally recognized even in jurisdictions where intentionally releasing something into the public domain is legally impossible, and second, that the license doesn’t just “go away” if you modify the licensed materials, whereas something in the public domain becomes copyrighted the moment you make changes to it.
I’d prefer public domain to any licensing, too, if it weren’t for that weakness of the public domain – its failure to protect those who use a modified form of something that was previously in the public domain.
I think that pretty much sums up my responses to what has been said since the last time I was here. Sorry about the long delay on responding; I don’t happen by this site very often.
By the way . . . the PDL has now been superseded by the OWL.
If you want to use something in the spirit of the PDL, I recommend the OWL instead, as its successor. The PDL itself should be considered deprecated.